[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, sure, people can afford to live in SD. They just have to pack in to a small house. . . . [/quote]They’re doing that already, all over SoCal. And also packing into small apts (as carli noted) and condos, whether the landlords initially understand that 2-4 people will occupy the unit/house … or not. However, only 1-2 people are typically on the lease. The rest are typically “guests” of the lessees. In South County SD, these “guests” typically amount to a group of people using the property sporadically on air mattresses and cots, as well as “couch surfing.” OR only using its address for school residency purposes and not actually living there at all (more common). These two groups gravitate between US/MX up to five times per week.

Without a parent’s name on a lease of a US-based living unit OR at least one (most recent) utility bill for that address in the parent’s name, it’s difficult to prove residency for their kids to attend school in the US. A single mom living in TJ with 1-6 kids they’re trying to send to US public schools typically can’t qualify herself to lease a dwelling unit in the US, ESPecially if she is undocumented.

Hence, the school districts have decided to accept (phony) “guardianship affidavits” from non-parents of kids living in MX who are seeking enrollment in US public schools.

In all practicality, only about 1-3% of all schoolchildren (depending on school) have legitimate “legal guardians” whom they reside with and who are not their parents. These guardians have court orders and some of them later end up adopting the kids (with the assistance of a county-issued “free or very low cost” dependency attorney) if their parent(s) can’t stay clean after being released from jail/prison/rehab. One of the duties of a county dependency attorney is to do whatever takes to keep more US citizen minors (in this case, minors residing in San Diego County, CA) from becoming (expensive) “wards of the state.”

The “affidavits” used for “residency” purposes for school districts are much more often than not “phony.” This is so, because for all intents and purposes, the affiant usually doesn’t have anything to do with the children. The parent of the children (whom they live with out of the district they are seeking school enrollment in or in MX) uses the services of the affiant (who resides in a the desired school district and/or attendance area) to obtain the right to enroll their kid(s) in their district and even their school of choice! These affidavits are used for the “sole purpose” of having an address of record in a certain school district and/or school attendance area and have been widely abused by parents residing in MX for this specific purpose for decades. The “affiant” purporting to be the minor’s “guardian” typically collects school mail for the parent of the kids and immediately notifies them of mail or calls about the kids originating from the school or district, often charging the parent a monthly fee for each kid. In the nineties, it cost parents residing in MX about $40-$50 per month per kid to “borrow” such an address with the full cooperation of the (non-related) tenant or homeowner. And they were only too happy to pay it WITHOUT EVER residing there.

Back in ’94, myself and two other co-workers turned in another co-worker to the Superintendent of CVESD who bragged incessantly about her “side job income” charging parents living in MX a monthly charge for each of their kids to use her address for school “residency” purposes. She was actually a tenant herself in a 2 bdrm/1 bath home in Chula Vista and had 2 kids of her own (the 3 of them lived there). But she had 25-30 elementary school students living in MX on any given month using her address for residency purposes to attend 7 different elementary schools in the district! She apparently rendered “guardianship affidavits” for all of them and was able to get zone transfers for several of them with that affidavit. In our letter, we named our co-worker, we took photos of the house she was renting, we gave the names of the 7 schools the border-crossing students were attending (per our convos with her) literally “spoon feeding” the super’s office so they could easily conduct an investigation.

About ten days later, the super’s secretary wrote us back, signing the 1.5 page reply on his behalf. She stated, in essence:

“Thank you so much for your very thorough and informative letter. [Superintendent’s name] wants you to know that our mission here at CVESD, first and foremost is to educate. Residency verification is done at the individual schools. He asked me to reply to you that we don’t have any way of knowing how many students in the district are using the same address because each school keeps their own records. We only have TWO employees in the district tasked with home visits to verify residency but we have had to utilize them in recent years as truancy officers because regular classroom attendance is also a top priority of CVESD. We are short staffed here at the administration level and cannot devote resources to this issue. I hope you understand and sincerely hope your own children are doing well in their respective schools.”

In short, classroom “head count” every single day is all that mattered to them. Of course, they were following the money from Sacramento, which is based upon daily “head count.”

I still have a copy of our 4-pg letter (with exhibits) and the original reply we got. I posted about this incident several years ago on this forum and I cannot now find the post.

So there you have it. It’s systemic corruption at the top. There is nothing anyone can DO about it down here because every superintendent before and after that was the same in every.single.school.district in South County SD. None of them will touch this issue with a ten-foot pole because if they did so … and began to fully understand the magnitude of the “problem” (its not a “problem” to them), it could greatly affect the district’s “bottom line” in a very short period of time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . Even if you implement a gestapo like inspection regime, all that would do is force the kids to stay in San Diego instead of going back and forth. . . . [/quote]That is NOT correct, FIH. You are assuming their parents can AFFORD to live on this side of the border. If they COULD, they WOULD! By “afford,” I mean lease or buy a place here THEMSELVES! That’s not ever gonna happen.

[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . And you would not save any money because you’d have pay inspectors to follow the kids home. . . [/quote]NO, we wouldn’t. We wouldn’t have to bother with it because if the border was fixed, they wouldn’t be able to cross it for school to begin with.

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . Those kids grow up to be part of our communities so why would you want to deny them an American education?[/quote]Um, do you have any evidence that the majority of former border-crossing students who get a public education in CA’s border counties (whether or not they actually graduate from HS) end up staying here and living on their own when their (often undocumented) parents can’t come over here and live legally? H@ll, US citizen lifetime RESIDENT millenials can’t even afford to live in this county, even 2-3 to one rental unit!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=carli][quote=bearishgurl]

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.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=carli][quote=Essbee]I’ll add one data point. 20 years ago, during college, I had a friend who had attended Bonita Vista High School in Chula Vista. One day, while hanging out, I met one of his former high school friends. Sure enough, that friend did indeed live in Tijuana (with his entire family) but had crossed the border every day to attend high school in the US. He openly admitted this.

I couldn’t understand how this was “legal”, considering that he wasn’t a U.S. resident. Obviously, it wasn’t legal. Basically, it was the phenomenon that BG has been talking about. I was kind of shocked by it all.[/quote]

I’ll add a counter data point, FWIW.

I spend a couple hours/week in Logan Heights/Barrio Logan, where I’m a court appointed advocate (pro bono) for certain at-risk kids, which I’ve been doing for years. Although I’d love to make my appointments w/these kids and their families on weekends, when it’s more convenient for me, I usually cannot because they’re in Tijuana w/family.

Many of these families have a parent or guardian (usually, it’s the mom, as in my current case) who works here and lives in an apartment w/the kids while they go to the neighborhood school. But on weekends, they all go to TJ to see the other parent, grandparents, cousins, etc. It’s not like it’s a formal arrangement, it’s just that there are usually a bunch of family members living in a (tiny) apartment here, working and going to school, and then there are a bunch of family members also living in TJ. They’re trying to make a living and their kids are along for the ride, going to school in the city where the parent works. Sometimes the dad is around here working but frequently he’s in TJ. This seems to be the way it works w/their neighbors, too. They’re crossing back and forth at least weekly. But they’re all still legal residents of the school area as they have an apartment here.

So that’s just another data point. But unlike BG, I don’t want to extrapolate my personal experience into a broad claim about student residency fraud. For that, I prefer to see actual data. And I’m still waiting for BG to support her claim that 25% of schools, teachers & administrators are unneeded due to this issue.

But I have nothing against (and actually enjoy) anecdotes, personal stories and single data points, and am only troubled when they’re used as substitutes for meaningful data.[/quote]carli, are you stating here that this population of students that you serve is qualified and eligible for the service you provide? Is your service funded through through a county or state agency funded by CA taxpayers?

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.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=deadzone][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Essbee]I’ll add one data point. 20 years ago, during college, I had a friend who had attended Bonita Vista High School in Chula Vista. One day, while hanging out, I met one of his former high school friends. Sure enough, that friend did indeed live in Tijuana (with his entire family) but had crossed the border every day to attend high school in the US. He openly admitted this.

I couldn’t understand how this was “legal”, considering that he wasn’t a U.S. resident. Obviously, it wasn’t legal. Basically, it was the phenomenon that BG has been talking about. I was kind of shocked by it all.[/quote]

I can see how this might work. For example that guy’s grandparents lived in Chula Vista. The grandparents were his legal guardians.

I don’t really see a problem… If the student were forced to physically live with the grandparents, then maybe the family would have made the sacrifice for the education and squeezed into a multi-family home. Plus it sounds like he now lives and works in USA. We are all better off for having educated him.

Even if he lives in Tijuana now, he likely crosses the border to to business in USA. The USA is first of mind for him and that benefits us economically, culturally, politically.

Just think of it this way… The Harvard JFK school of government welcomes students from across the globe because we want to influence the world to our way of life through education.[/quote]

Clearly you have no school age children, and certainly not going to school in the South Bay. So unless you do, your debate with BG is pointless.[/quote]Ha, ha, deadzone. I got back into town last night and just saw this and I’m now ready to indulge in one of my fav pastimes …. rolling in the mud with the Piggs :-0

As usual, I see here that FIH’s fantasies have once again run amok. Obviously, he didn’t even READ Essbee’s post. She specifically stated that the young man she met ADMITTED to her that he crossed the border every day to attend BVHS for 3 years (BVHS was a “Senior High” 20 years ago, thus it was only a 3-yr school). Of course, what did he have to lose at that point by admitting it after the fact? Students commuting to CVESD and SUHSD schools from Tijuana were a bit more secretive back then. Of course, his K-12 education couldn’t then be taken from him at that point. Like the tens of thousands of his “brethren” preceding and succeeding him, he was able to successfully “steal” 3-13 years worth of public education from South County SD taxpayers, and, to a lesser extent, the CA taxpayers as a whole. It is VERY possible that he ALSO attended BVMS, fka BVJHS (7-9) AS WELL AS attended K-6 at one of CVESD’s best elementary schools (and there are plenty). His successful completion of the 9th grade at BVJHS would have most certainly facilitated his entrance into BVSHS! And he attended BVSHS ALL THE WHILE commuting daily from Tijuana!

This has been going on for decades, folks, but has become especially pronounced (higher percentage of students commuting from MX in EVERY SINGLE school) in the past 15 years (during my youngest kid’s “tenure” at BVHS and feeder schools). My youngest kid’s feeder schools likely had 100 – 200 “daily border crossing students” enrolled in their middle school and 65-90 enrolled in their elementary school in any given year. And this is just a small sampling of these entire two district(s), which mostly overlap each other. SUHSD overlaps 3 other (much smaller) elementary school districts. There are 13 HS’s in SUHSD so BVM/BVH (plus their 3+ full and partial feeder elementary schools) equal about 1/13 of the South County student body.

FIH, do you not understand that by allowing a “Guardianship Affidavit” for residency purposes (absent a court order to that effect) that a public school district is inviting rampant abuses of it by out of district/out of countRy families? It’s a scam created by public school districts (with aging and gentrifying attendance areas) to perpetuate themselves into oblivion. A true “legal guardian” of a minor (parent(s) deceased, addicted, incarcerated, etc), can get a court order to that effect through their County’s HHSA with a county-issued lawyer at no cost to themselves and with little to zero opposition! Ask yourselves why public school districts along the US int’l border actually entertain such BS to establish the all-important “residency” for a prospective or continuing student.

BVHS (fka: BVSHS – grades 10-12) just so happens to be my own kids’ alma mater, lol, and they graduated 9 years apart from each other! If you ask THEM, “How many kids commuting from TJ every day did you go to HS with, the answer will be the same with each of them. “Ha, ha …. hundreds. It was a joke. All the teachers knew. Everyone knew and they didn’t even try to hide it.” Of course, BVHS always had dozens of vehicles sporting Baja plates parked in the student parking lot and anyone on this board is welcome to go check it out for themselves after school starts again later this month.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9zm6GSINUBYVThGODhvZXdvUE0/view?pref=2&pli=1

While you’re there, you may as well make the rounds to student parking lots of other district high schools. The best times to view the maximum amount of student vehicles parked at school is between 8:00 am and 11:00 am.

High Schools

I invite everyone reading this to make the rounds and come back here and report your findings.

***

Oh, and FIH? You must know that “Harvard” is a private university. Thus, it is not supported by US taxpayers. As far as I am concerned, they can admit students from other planets who arrive on campus by spaceship every day and it would be their own perogative to do so whilst collecting the Big Bucks for tuition from all comers.

NOT SO for US public schools in which the vast majority of districts have very finite resources.

[bearishgurl]

SK, the women of the US got their justice with the SCOTUS this morning, written by none other than J. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. See, she WAS able to make a difference in womens’ lives in her lifetime!

You can relax, now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/27/abortion-is-safer-than-childbirth-ruth-bader-ginsburg-writes-after-historic-supreme-court-ruling/

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]By my revised estimate: 2400 students on the trolleys coming from the southernmost station near the border.

“Thousands” crossing by car driven by their parents. Say 3000?

“A thousand” by car driven by students themselves.

We’re up to 6400 students, or 3.2% of entire student population. If it’s concentrated in certain districts, it doesn’t seem to be a county-wide issue, and the total number of students is relatively small compared to county population.[/quote]The cars driven by parents often have 3-4 students in each vehicle (not necessarily related but were driven into the US together). The “regular” cars/vans that used to park on my street for years (where the adult would get out, often carrying a baby or pushing a stroller) usually had 3-6 student-kids with her whom she walked thru the back gate of the elementary school every morning. Parents/relatives do not make their onerous trek into the US early in the morning without taking as many kids as possible with them. We had four “regular” vehicles every school year and sometimes six with Baja plates which would be parked in the same place every school morning to walk kids onto the school grounds and pick them up in the afternoon (total of 40-50 minutes of parking per day). This went on the entire time I lived there (12 years). High school kids also drive their relatives and neighbors over the border and to school (even if it is a different school, due to age of the passengers).

The relevant Districts that have the vast majority of these border crossing students enrolled are:

South Bay Union School District (K-6): 6000 (approx)
Chula Vista Elementary School District (K-6): 29,300
Sweetwater Union High School District (7-12): 42,000
National School District (K-6): 3000 (approx)

That’s a total of approximately 80,300 students. I would take an educated guess that over 90% of the border crossing students into SD County every morning attend public school in one of the above districts. The other 10% are spread out in public schools elsewhere in the county which are closer to a parent’s workplace.

I did not include CUSD (Coronado) because they are much stricter about granting interdistrict transfers and enrollment/residency issues over there. Therefore, I feel it is unlikely that more than a handful (if any) daily “border crossing students” were able to pass thru their “vetting system.”[/quote]

Add to the above 4 school districts San Ysidro Elementary (K-8) with approx 5300 students for a total of approximately 85,600 public school students for academic year 15-16 in South County, SD. Sorry, my mind was telling me there were five districts last night, but it was late ….

SY Elem Sch District apparently has a large homeless population among its students. A group of them are apparently living out of vehicles, etc:

Homeless emergency in San Ysidro schools escalates with grant loss

The Governor turned down its grant proposal (for academic year 15/16) for assistance in this regard. Ask yourselves why.

Which begs the question. How did little tiny San Ysidro (mostly commercial/industrial) get 5300 school age kids (presumably) living within its district?? What are their addresses? How many actual residential units does SY have?

Here in my microcosm of 91910 (west side), we have ONE soon to be 9th grader, ONE soon to be 5th grader and ONE soon to be senior in HS living in a neighborhood with approx 80 single family homes! Another 2 students attend public school in Rancho Del Rey (5 miles away) and Otay Ranch HS (9 miles away). Another 8 school-age kids residing here are homeschooled. That’s 18 school-age kids for 80 homes, where just 3 are attending public schools in the attendance area! And they are all good schools, btw! The problem is that there are very few young parents who own/rent around here and the homes turn over very, very slowly (mostly due to Props 13, 58 and 193).

Hence, nearby Hilltop HS (SUHSD) was “significantly under-enrolled” in academic year ’15-16. No duh. This has been going on for years but the district has now decided to utilize it better (since it spent over $40M in construction bonds to remodel it in the past decade or so):

Parents Angered By Attendance Boundaries Change In Chula Vista …

[bearishgurl]

Ha ha, I ran across this 9-year old article earlier from little, hot, dusty Calexico (been there a few times, lol). The school district there has employed someone to take photos of students crossing the border to attend public school there. And knock on doors of “guardians” of students suspected of living in MX. Hilarious!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22454322/ns/us_news-education/t/camera-keeps-out-students-across-border/#.V3C20BLvabY

It’s border crossing only had two gates last time I was there!

Not all districts on board
Jesus Gandara, superintendent of the Sweetwater district, with 44,000 students along San Diego’s border with Mexico, said tracking children at the border goes too far. “If you do that, you’re playing immigration agent,” he said.

Notice how Gandara didn’t seem too concerned. And neither did his predecessor OR successor (formerly the CVESD superintendent). They’re not “concerned” because they don’t really want to know. If SUHSD suddenly should lose 10K+ of their (non-resident) students, they would have to do massive layoffs. That would certainly put a dent in the super’s “umbrella of influence.” It’s very simple. Less students = less employees = smaller organization = his job won’t command the salary/eventual pension it currently does.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]By my revised estimate: 2400 students on the trolleys coming from the southernmost station near the border.

“Thousands” crossing by car driven by their parents. Say 3000?

“A thousand” by car driven by students themselves.

We’re up to 6400 students, or 3.2% of entire student population. If it’s concentrated in certain districts, it doesn’t seem to be a county-wide issue, and the total number of students is relatively small compared to county population.[/quote]The cars driven by parents often have 3-4 students in each vehicle (not necessarily related but were driven into the US together). The “regular” cars/vans that used to park on my street for years (where the adult would get out, often carrying a baby or pushing a stroller) usually had 3-6 student-kids with her whom she walked thru the back gate of the elementary school every morning. Parents/relatives do not make their onerous trek into the US early in the morning without taking as many kids as possible with them. We had four “regular” vehicles every school year and sometimes six with Baja plates which would be parked in the same place every school morning to walk kids onto the school grounds and pick them up in the afternoon (total of 40-50 minutes of parking per day). This went on the entire time I lived there (12 years). High school kids also drive their relatives and neighbors over the border and to school (even if it is a different school, due to age of the passengers).

The relevant Districts that have the vast majority of these border crossing students enrolled are:

South Bay Union School District (K-6): 6000 (approx)
Chula Vista Elementary School District (K-6): 29,300
Sweetwater Union High School District (7-12): 42,000
National School District (K-6): 3000 (approx)

That’s a total of approximately 80,300 students. I would take an educated guess that over 90% of the border crossing students into SD County every morning attend public school in one of the above districts. The other 10% are spread out in public schools elsewhere in the county which are closer to a parent’s workplace.

I did not include CUSD (Coronado) because they are much stricter about granting interdistrict transfers and enrollment/residency issues over there. Therefore, I feel it is unlikely that more than a handful (if any) daily “border crossing students” were able to pass thru their “vetting system.”

[bearishgurl]

[img_assist|nid=25895|title=SD Trolley map|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=248|height=300]

Only the first 9 stops of the blue line (San Ysidro being the first stop) would be used to embark/disembark by border-crossing students attending public schools in the four districts listed in my most recent post.

See: https://www.transit.wiki/San_Diego_Trolley_Blue_Line

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Work the math.

San Diego school district apparently has 130,000 students. Probably 200,000 counting suburban schools outside the city.

How many kids are in those “throngs”? What is the capacity of a trolley?

The trolleys seem to run three-car trains, with I’d say a sitting/standing capacity of 100 per trolley car. Say the pertinent period is two hours, and there are four trolleys per hour on the line.

100 x 3 x 4 x 2 = 2400 people. Assuming 50% of each trolley car is full of border-crossing students (a high estimate), that’s 1200 kids per day.

About 1/2 of one percent of the entire student population of the county. Am I missing something?[/quote]Yes. You’re missing the thousands of private vehicles sporting Baja CA plates crossing the border every morning and dropping kids off for school … even as far as SD and East County (but usually those further school destinations are because the driving parent works near those schools). And you’re also missing hundreds … maybe over 1000 private vehicles with Baja plates being driven over the border every morning by high school students themselves and parked in the student parking lot of the school they’re attending.

Re: the trolley, you are almost correct, except:

In the early morning (5:30 to 6:00 am) there are likely more students boarding the trolley at SY than workers.

When students disembark at Iris and Palomar to catch buses, other students from MX get on to disembark at a station further north. Their parent dropped them off or will pick them up in the afternoon at these stations to go to their own jobs or shop before meeting their kids in the afternoon.

The border crossing students start boarding the trolley at SY about 5:30 am but the big crowds are between 6:00 am and 7:00 am. In South County, the latest any elementary school starts is about 8:30 am but most start before 8:00 am. MS/HS start 1st period earlier (7:15 am to 7:45 am).

So the “pertinent period” is about 1.5 to 2 hrs in the morning BUT you were only counting boardings at SY. You are not accounting for boardings further north on the blue line.

Your estimate of the student population is low for the entire county but high for the affected districts. I can get you the relevant figures of the four actual school districts the vast majority of border crossing students are attending.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]But still no evidence to support your outrageous “25%” claim?[/quote]It’s not outrageous. Why don’t you come visit some family here and take a few HS parking lot drive-bys yourself? The first week of August would be perfect! You’re another one that has lived too far from the border to have ever experienced anything like this. Come on down!

Better yet, park at the San Ysidro trolley stop at 6:00 am on any school morning and watch the throngs of kids with backpacks on walk in from MX (or get dropped off) and board the trolley. And the next. And the next. Better yet, arrive at 5:45 a.m. and stay at least a full hour to get a more accurate portrayal of what exactly is going on here. If you really wanted to obtain a full understanding of the problem, you could spend a week here and plant yourself at all the trolley stops between SY and 8th St (NC) starting at 6:15 a.m. and see how many kids with backpacks get off at each and every stop for a full hour (4 trolleys).

Hint #1: If you’re squeezed for time, most of the border-crossing students will disembark the trolley at Iris Ave, Palomar and H Street, where they will immediately board a SD or CV Transit bus.

Hint #2: Few “resident” students in South County take the trolley to school. They get dropped off by private vehicle, take the school bus or take a city bus (CV or NC bus). But they don’t catch city buses at the trolley station. They catch them near their homes.

[bearishgurl]

The use of the terms, “edge case,” “border kids,” “they are here,” “they are part of us” and references to student living in both the US and MX simultaneously (which is impossible, btw, unless they’re living out of their backpacks) are nothing more than attempts at “PC obfuscations” of the real issue which is that thousands of foreign students who reside in another country are stealing classroom seats from US citizen residents who actually reside in the attendance area of said school. This has been going on for decades in broad daylight with multiple “professional” witnesses every day. This results in a multitude of problems, nearly all which are profound and cost US and state taxpayers a fortune.

a) a student moving into the attendance area of a particular school being denied a seat at that school due to overcrowding. Their parents may or may not be paying exorbitant Mello Roos which was used to build and fund improvements at their neighborhood schools;

b) a US citizen, RESIDENT English-speaking elementary school student is placed at their grade level in their neighborhood school where 3.5 out of 4 classes offered at their grade level are comprised of ESL students, effectively holding back the progress of the 10-12 native English speakers at that grade level in that school;

c) the presence of a majority of ESL students at a particular elementary or middle school effectively lowers the test scores and ratings of that school, often so profoundly that the school is eventually placed on the NCLB “watch list” making it possible for nearly ALL its native English-speaking RESIDENT students to flee that school for a more distant, better performing school in the district; and,

d) The districts’ budgets have been so compromised in past decades (since about the mid-nineties) that art, music and PE has all but been eliminated in elementary and middle schools. The few teachers the districts employ in these subjects must travel from school to school and teach these classes 2-4x month to the students. This contributes to the childhood obesity epidemic, IMO. Mello Roos bonds can be used to pay for gym equipment, etc, but instead has been deployed to pay for (expensive) ESL materials for the masses.

Allowing daily border-crossing students (mostly non-English speaking in the lower grades) to use our schools is simply facilitating a race to the bottom for nearly all the residents of the district and moreso as the years go on. Homes in areas where the public schools are overrun with ESL students do not maintain their values as well or appreciate as well as other parts of the county where this problem isn’t as pronounced (or is nonexistent).

And a large portion of teachers in South County can retire today with 30 years service and get pensions equivalent to full pay, yet they are still working, ESPecially in CVESD. (So it would be fine if we had to shut down 4-6 elementary schools due to disenrollment of a huge portion of the student population due to lack of proof of bona-fide residency.) Another large group trails them with 25+ years of service. These teachers are very good at what they do … getting these thousands of ESL students English literate before entering middle school. It is very challenging and they are very patient and skilled in their jobs. And I could see South County closing 2-3 middle schools and possibly 2 high schools if stricter rules at the border were enforced, along with stricter rules for proving residency.

Currently, no identification is asked for or required of an adult who comes into a school or the district office to register a student for school and prove their residency. The adult doing this (1) does not have to prove who they are; (2) does not have to prove it is their name of the utility bills, leases, deed, closing docs, guardianship affidavit, etc, which they are presenting to establish their student’s residency; (3) does not have to prove they are related to the student in any way; and (4) does not have to prove that it was they who actually executed a “guardianship affidavit” used to establish the student’s residency. They could be using someone else’s documents and as long as the name of the guardian on the guardianship affidavit matches the name on ONE utility bill and that affidavit lists their “charge” with the name of the student they are attempting to register, they’re golden! Essentially, the registering adult could be anyone! There are so many holes in the procedure and almost no guardians have the same last name as the student they are registering. It is a red flag that so many “guardianship affidavits” are accepted by the school/district relative to the general student population but the administration doesn’t care. In addition, some schools actually use student workers in the office to verify residency!

I personally have gone into my kids’ HS numerous times to “prove residency” for my student to student workers and/or 20-something school office workers with their dad’s utility bills and residency verification form HE filled out and signed because he had a very demanding job. He is a male and I am a female. They don’t know me and never asked me my name. The bills weren’t for my address and they could care less. They just compare the documents with a list of acceptable documents taped to the counter and accept them. My student kid was never with me (they were usually in class at the time) and there was no one there to call me “mom.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]bearishgurl: the number of kids that:
(1) have US citizenship
(2) live in Mexico
and (3) go to school in the US,

is probably an edge case since all three conditions need met.[/quote]spd, there is no such thing as an “edge case,” here. In order to LEGALLY attend public school in CA and TX, the student has to be a RESIDENT of said school district (unless they obtained an inter-district transfer from another school district). In ALL cases, they must be a RESIDENT of said county and state they are seeking eligibility to attend public school in. Students whose families live in Mexico (a foreign country) do not qualify, unless their parent(s) agree to a payment schedule with the school district for payment of monthly tuition for each of their students (in CA … not sure if this applies to TX).

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Njtosd, we are not educating the whole world. We are educating kids who are here and part of us.

And so what if they live part time in Mexico? They are here and will be working here.[/quote]Um, except they don’t live “part time” in Mexico. They live full-time in Mexico and will continue to live full-time in Mexico. The vast majority of their parents can’t afford to live on the US side of the border. And they have kept coming, year after year … for decades. We have a never-ending supply of students who live out of the country filling up our public schools here in SD County. And for those who graduate from high school, completing their A-G requirements for CA public university entrance (and other language and science requirements for the UC, depending on declared major), they can and do take seats from US-citizen applicants in the CSU/UC systems (often with Pell Grants and Cal Grants funded by US and CA taxpayers). Add those freshman applicants (many are “Dream Act” applicants just by virtue of their CA HS diploma) to all the other CSU/UC applicants with foreign HS diplomas and out-of-state HS diplomas and we have a situation here in CA where we have tens of thousands of qualified US citizen HS graduates (born and raised in CA) who applied to multiple campuses of the CSU/UC, were not accepted to ANY campus and are essentially “stuck” in CC until such time they can get admitted to a CA public university as a junior. Which may or may not be the semester/quarter after they obtain their associate degrees …. assuming “life” doesn’t get in the way while they’re waiting. This group will NOT necessarily be able to earn an associate degree in two years, either. That all depends on the impaction of the particular CC they are attending and their willingness and ability to travel to another county CC to obtain their missing credits for their Associate of Transfer degree (favorite alternatives around here are Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges). Here in Chula Vista, SWC is terribly impacted. The recent “improvements” ($75M in voter-approved bond funds?) to the campus did NOT increase classroom space or class facilities. Hundreds of former “border crossing” local high school students (now graduates) can and do attend SWC while still residing in Mexico. The vast majority of this group of students undoubtedly qualify for fee waivers due to hailing from “very low income” households.

In short, FIH is claiming these thousands of students crossing the border every day to receive free (K-12) or nearly free (CC) educations in the US are “part of us” and are going to “work in the US.” That isn’t necessarily true. They have to be able to support themselves in the US and their “brethren” who were born and raised in the US can’t even support themselves in their own hometowns! And the US born and raised group typically has more “prosperous parents!”

Here in Cali, we have essentially been allowing Mexicans (in the border counties, the vast majority live in MX and never lived in the US, except as a “temporary guest” in someone else’s home) to use up our educational resources, court resources, social service resources, medical care, Federal food aid and to take up 40% or more of our state prison cells while US born and raised citizens wait in line with them for same finite services and number of seats (except to occupy prisons). Cali has been bulging at the seams with “undocumented aliens” and “anchor babies” for decades. The vast majority of “anchor babies” never lived in the US but were born in the US for the sole reason of getting their piece of the American pie when they turn 18 … and they and their parents admit this! Actually, they’re quite overt about it! I’m sure Congress didn’t consider what could happen in the second half of the 20th century when they crafted section 1 the 14th Amendment and added it to our Constitution. Of course, at that time, there was no such thing as “illegal immigration!”

You can talk to ANY county supervisor or mayor in this state (as well as the state treasurer on up to the governor) and they will ALL tell you the exact same thing that I am regurgitating here and have posted here in the recent and distant past. Nothing has changed and nothing ever will unless something is actually DONE about this (seemingly intractable) problem.

You can start by contacting your local reps here in the “border counties.” They ALL have a front and center box seat to Cali’s budget travails (which trickle on down to its counties and cities) and can intelligently discuss the causes with you. A short and simplistic answer would be that they are 65% due to rampant, unchecked, illegal immigration (and Federal birthright citizenship as a smaller byproduct) and 35% due to Prop 13 and its progeny, Props 58 and 193.

[Author]

Posts