The Donald Trump, Illegal Alien, Foreigner, Immigrant Bitch and Moan Thread

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Coronita on June 22, 2016 - 7:13am

Submitted by deadzone on July 1, 2016 - 3:22pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Essbee wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 1, 2016 - 6:29pm.

deadzone wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Essbee wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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/0B9zm6GS...

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.

http://www.sweetwaterschools.org/high-sc...

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.

Submitted by carli on July 1, 2016 - 6:31pm.

Essbee wrote:
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.

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 1, 2016 - 7:15pm.

carli wrote:
Essbee wrote:
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.

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.

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.

Submitted by carli on July 1, 2016 - 9:21pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

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.

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! :-)

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 1, 2016 - 9:55pm.

BG, in a bordertown, you have a lot of binational families. We have superior education in San Diego so it makes sense that families would choose the better schools. People go back and forth.
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. And you would not save any money because you'd have pay inspectors to follow the kids home.

Those kids grow up to be part of our communities so why would you want to deny them an American education?

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 1, 2016 - 10:47pm.

carli wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

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.

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! :-)

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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 1, 2016 - 10:55pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
. . . 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. . . .
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.

FlyerInHi wrote:
. . . And you would not save any money because you'd have pay inspectors to follow the kids home. . .
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.

FlyerInHi wrote:
. . . Those kids grow up to be part of our communities so why would you want to deny them an American education?
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!

Submitted by FlyerInHi on July 2, 2016 - 10:41am.

BG, sure, people can afford to live in SD. They just have to pack in to a small house.

How do you think Trump will fix the border? By denying entry to those entitled to enter?

And if you assume children come here for school, why would people not come for work and higher wages, if they can.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 2, 2016 - 2:35pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
BG, sure, people can afford to live in SD. They just have to pack in to a small house. . . .
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.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 2, 2016 - 4:18pm.

Here is a 24.5 year-old LA Times article discussing this issue:

INS to Begin Student Visa Crackdown : Border: Starting Monday, Mexican students crossing the border daily to attend U.S. schools will be refused entry unless they have the proper visa.

January 11, 1992|DAVID SMOLLAR | TIMES STAFF WRITER

An unknown number of Mexican children may be refused entry to the United States at the Tijuana and Mexicali border crossings Monday morning when the Immigration and Naturalization Service begins strict enforcement of student visa regulations.

Any potential effect is likely to be felt most in four South Bay public school districts nearest the border, in which the INS believes a number of Mexican nationals are enrolled.

However, administrators in those districts said Friday they do not expect any major attendance reductions because they do not believe there are large numbers of Mexican students illegally in their schools.

But administrators have no statistics to know definitely whether or not there will be a major disruption until after the enforcement is under way next week.

Although the INS estimates that 5,000 to 10,000 children living in the Baja California border areas regularly attend all types of schools in the United States, its figures include children who hold American citizenship or permanent resident status but whose parents choose to live in Mexico.

Those children will not be affected by the stricter enforcement, nor will those who cross to attend parochial schools in the United States and who already have student visas.

INS inspectors at the Tijuana border have been seeing "carloads of schoolchildren, books in tow, bound north from Tijuana every (U.S.) school day, with no documentation other than border crossing cards," James B. Turnage, INS district director in San Diego, said.

Turnage said this amounts to a "free ride" for those students attending public schools because they are not paying tuition otherwise required of out-of-district students.

The new enforcement, which will cover ports of entry along the border from San Diego to Texas, will mean that a Mexican national student must have a student (F-1) visa to cross and will no longer be able to use border cards, which are issued for short-term shopping and visitation of relatives.

The INS said it will seize such cards if they are used in lieu of required student visas, noting that that it has been publicizing the "phased enforcement policy" since July. . . .

To enroll a student in a public school, a family need only show the school attendance office a rent or utility receipt containing a valid address within the school district. Schools generally do not double-check for proof, and the California Constitution requires public schools to educate free any child living within their boundaries.

"Officially, we have not received any requests from students to submit information" for visa forms, Deb Baker, public information officer for the South Bay Union School District, said.

"Unofficially, we may have a few students attending who come from Tijuana, but we really don't have any idea. We do see a couple of Baja plates on cars in front of a school from time to time, and we hear stories of a student or two late because of problems coming across the border. But we don't think that the numbers are large." ....

(emphasis mine)

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-11/l...

Of course, the "anchor baby" border crossing students who were residing in MX with their parents were left out of the INS "sweep" of January 1992 (even though the INS had known for years that hordes of schoolchildren crossed the border into the US every morning dressed for school with their backpacks on and that it was illegal for non-residents to attend public school in the US) without paying tuition :=0

Since then, South County school districts have built approx 30% MORE schools for daily border-crossing students to choose from! After choosing where they want to attend, their parent sets about locating a willing resident in the district and even school attendance area where they would prefer their kids attend school for the purposes of having them execute their "guardianship affidavit!" The city of Chula Vista alone had a population of ~90K in 1992 and ~52K in 1986. Today the city's approximate population is 277K!

Notice that the spokesperson from SBUSD, (one of the two public elementary school districts closest to the border) stated in the article to the Times reporter that they don't think (daily border crossing students) are really a "problem." A second administrator from the SYESD told the reporter that she suspects that "a few" (students living in MX) probably slip through but she (personally?) checks every student's residency.

Yeah, okay . . . sure.

After adding at least 6K students to Calexico's ~2-3K public school student population in 1992 (for a total of approx 8500 students today) to South SD County's 85K+ students (totaling ~94K current public school students on the US side of the border of Baja CA, we can multiply that 5-10K INS "ball-park estimation" in 1992 by at least 3 today. If the INS' rough estimation was low, the daily border-crossing public school student population could be much higher than 3x 5-10K today.

At South County's current ~85K public school student population, just over 21K students would equal 25% of the overall current student population (in 4 elem school districts plus one HS district).

I posted here that my estimate of current daily border crossing public school students in South County was currently approx 25% of the total enrolled student population.

The article has an error in that a parent cannot submit receipts for rent or utilities to establish residency. They must submit a copy of a lease, deed, or utility bill of a qualified address in their own name.

Ha, ha, the "public administration officer" for SBUSD also stated to the Times reporter, "`Officially, we have not received any requests from students to submit information' for visa forms."

Of course not! Why would any of their students residing in MX (especially "anchor babies") request a visa when it would cause their families to have to pay tuition to the district??

Submitted by joec on July 2, 2016 - 5:31pm.

This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

Submitted by deadzone on July 2, 2016 - 9:29pm.

joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

Where is your hood?

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 2, 2016 - 11:26pm.

joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

joec, the South Bay area has some very nice (and expensive) neighborhoods! In addition, most homeowners in Otay Ranch (91915), built 2001 thru 2006 (but primarily 2003 and later) are each paying on TWO 40-yr CFDs totaling approx 1.6% of their assessed value just in Mello Roos alone (nearly ALL going to the local public school districts and CC)! This is in ADDITION to their ad valoream portion of their tax bill of 1% PLUS approximately .17 of their assessed value in voter approved bonds (mainly local public school and CC construction bonds) for a total of 2.77% to 2.78% of assessed value towards property tax outlay for each affected parcel every year! There are actually a LOT of truly "wealthy" families around here! And yes, many of their ancestors originally came here from MX. Those 2nd, 3rd and even 4th Generation South County residents of Hispanic origin (100%/50%/25%) with LEGAL status actually detest the situation with all these daily border crossing children being allowed to occupy seats in their children's and grandchildren's schools!

The west side of Chula Vista (91910/91911) is almost ALL situated less than two miles from SD Bay (excepting the communities of Sunbow, Deerpark and older surrounds immediately east of I-805). As is Nestor, Egger Highlands and communities in the Otay Mesa area south of CV (92154), all annexed to the City of SD between 1977 and 1979. In addition, portions of 91910 have 1/2 to 4 AC residential lots which can NEVER by upzoned and many corner lots in 91910 are typically 1/4 AC. These areas are still in the cooler "coastal zone" even though they are not directly on the ocean. SD Bay is only 1.5 miles wide between the NC/CV boat docks and the Silver Strand (Coronado). Living here is very hospitable and requires no A/C (except during a heat wave and we usually lose power at those times, anyway, due to our antiquated electrical grid and overhead lines still present in almost all areas). What I'm trying to say here is that SD South County is actually a great place to live! It's just "convenient" for border-crossing kids to avail themselves of our (mostly excellent) schools!

We also have Bonita (91902) which is landlocked and now surrounded by newer communities with their own (CV) zip codes on its south and east sides whose residents now use Bonita's streets daily to get to I-805/I-5. The "jewel of the South Bay," Bonita (circa 1952 to 1986) is a hilly, semi-rural view community with only FOUR condo complexes and ONE PUD complex. Its SFR stock is zoned just 3 parcels to one AC, on average! 3/4 unincorporated (County of SD) and 1/4 incorporated into the City of CV, Bonita is situated just 3-5 miles from SD Bay and is actually in the semi-coastal zone. It's a FABULOUS place to live, people! ESPecially for families who like to entertain! And the residents of Bonita (among the rest of their SD South County brethren) have hundreds of daily border crossing kids attending their kids' and grandkids' schools (ALL FIVE of their assigned K-12 schools)! Its a dirty shame and a travesty. Some of the houses in Bonita (as well as in a small subdivision in Eastlake (CV) are assessed at over $2M. Yet Bonita's homeowners (if they have school-age kids) must DEAL with this collossal mess on a daily basis.

There would actually be NOTHING WRONG with SOUTH COUNTY's location IF the adjacent Int'l border didn't present so many problems for its residents. The fact that the border IS where it IS obviously deters many qualified buyers from considering the area to purchase in (even though most of it has GREAT weather and is extremely conveniently located)! And rightly so. The border isn't properly managed and hasn't been for decades. Our current problems with rampant northward daily int'l border-crossing students attending our public schools is partly Pres. Obama's fault thru his "amnesty" provision he enacted for children crossing our southern border (both when accompanied by parents AS WELL AS being "unaccompanied"). And, as a nearly lifelong Dem, I voted for Obama TWICE, mind you. The Int'l border is nothing more than a SIEVE of northbound POOR and NEEDY people (incl children) whose parents will, by hook or crook, seek a better life for them, and, in doing so, their children have successfully availed themselves of a US K-12 public education at OUR expense for decades> (This phenomenon much more pronounced in recent years.) And it will NEVER stop until the affected school districts and their schools are mandated to refuse "residency by affidavit" unless it is court-ordered and demand to see a state-issued Driver License or ID card for each and every so-called "parent or guardian" who tries to prove residency for a prospective student. Then, the district must record that DL or State ID NUMBER and make every effort to determine if that (bona-fide school district resident) who "proved residency" for a prospective student whilst residing out of the district/country is actually their "parent." The County HHSA Depts can often be used for this exercise. And the border personnel needs to DEMAND student visas from border-crossing students into the US in the mornings. The only way public school systems are going to sponsor such visas is IF the student's family pays tuition to the district. This will cut down on 99.9% of daily border-crossing students who have for decades "freeloaded" off resident taxpayer's backs.

Any procedure less than this is just another attempt to perpetuate the non-resident school attendance fraud in South SD County which has been going on for decades ... same old, same old. Yes, it is nothing more than "residency fraud," plain and simple.

Submitted by Coronita on July 3, 2016 - 2:30pm.

joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

Lol... now you did it. I'm waiting for the responses that will now defend Chula Vista and what a great city it is and how border kids aren't affecting the school districts in it......self-contradicting earlier posts about how horrible this problem is in such areas...

I don't know if migrants kids are or are not a real problem in public schools...But I'll agree with you, that I haven't seen an issue in my neighborhood's school districts either, lol.

Must be that my hood is in a far flung area invested with tract homes that have too many walls and too many lizards... :)

Have a nice weekend!....

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 3, 2016 - 3:05pm.

flu wrote:
joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

Lol... now you did it. I'm waiting for the responses that will now defend Chula Vista and what a great city it is and how border kids aren't affecting the school districts in it......self-contradicting earlier posts about how horrible this problem is in such areas...

I don't know if migrants kids are or are not a real problem in public schools...But I'll agree with you, that I haven't seen an issue in my neighborhood's school districts either, lol.

Must be that my hood is in a far flung area invested with tract homes that have too many walls and too many lizards... :)

Have a nice weekend!....

flu, once again, you're twisting the issue to suit yourself in that convoluted mind of yours. YOU created the topic on this thread so YOU can stay on it! We aren't talking about "migrant's kids" here and you know it. That issue exists in Merced, Hanford, Fresno, Stockton and Lodi, for starters, but NOT SD County.

We're talking about kids crossing the border every day to go to public school in SD South County who don't meet the residency requirements to do so in any way, shape or form. Why?? Because they LIVE IN MEXICO! Plain and simple.

Perhaps your district refuses to accept "affidavits" to prove residency but will only accept a court order for guardianship (as it SHOULD be, IMO). Most likely, your schools are too far for this group to travel every day (too many buses after disembarking the trolley) and it is very likely that their parents don't have jobs in the area of your public schools (so didn't attempt to get their kids enrolled there). The daily border-crossing student group already gets up VERY early just to attend public school in South County SD! That's why there have been many reports over the years by teachers and other students of so many students falling asleep in afternoon classes.

Believe me, if you DID have the problem and your public elementary schools had to begin setting aside 50% or more of each grade level for this HUGE ESL group, you would know it! The parents in your area would be causing an uproar with the press and calling a meeting in an auditorium with the superintendent with the TV cameras rolling.

You're just one more Pigg with a NIMBY out-of-sight, out-of-mind attitude about this issue and that's okay. But that doesn't make the problem not real or make it go away.

And btw, joec, CVESD and SUHSD are "better" school districts. Our teachers have won teacher of the year (best in county and state) in multiple years and are among the best in the country! They move mountains for the kids and are extremely competent ... especially considering the environment they have to work in. I have the utmost respect for them and also the HS academic advisors. They ALL have hard jobs that are not for everyone but someone has to do :=0

And we have quite a few schools of both CVESD and SUHSD which score an "8" or a "9."

As far as individual school and district administration personnel, most of them certainly could be much more competent than they are, IMO. And I believe school district administration is corrupt at the top due to this border issue. They could have been lobbying their representatives for change but instead have done nothing about it but sit back and collect the "head count money" from Sacramento. By the top brass "looking the other way," it affects every student in one way or another and some much more than others, especially those who are not able to attend the schools in their attendance areas due to overcrowding. This is especially a travesty for those students whose parents pay exorbitant MR.

Submitted by Coronita on July 3, 2016 - 6:40pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

joec, the South Bay area has some very nice (and expensive) neighborhoods! In addition, most homeowners in Otay Ranch (91915), built 2001 thru 2006 (but primarily 2003 and later) are each paying on TWO 40-yr CFDs totaling approx 1.6% of their assessed value just in Mello Roos alone (nearly ALL going to the local public school districts and CC)! This is in ADDITION to their ad valoream portion of their tax bill of 1% PLUS approximately .17 of their assessed value in voter approved bonds (mainly local public school and CC construction bonds) for a total of 2.77% to 2.78% of assessed value towards property tax outlay for each affected parcel every year! There are actually a LOT of truly "wealthy" families around here! And yes, many of their ancestors originally came here from MX. Those 2nd, 3rd and even 4th Generation South County residents of Hispanic origin (100%/50%/25%) with LEGAL status actually detest the situation with all these daily border crossing children being allowed to occupy seats in their children's and grandchildren's schools!

The west side of Chula Vista (91910/91911) is almost ALL situated less than two miles from SD Bay (excepting the communities of Sunbow, Deerpark and older surrounds immediately east of I-805). As is Nestor, Egger Highlands and communities in the Otay Mesa area south of CV (92154), all annexed to the City of SD between 1977 and 1979. In addition, portions of 91910 have 1/2 to 4 AC residential lots which can NEVER by upzoned and many corner lots in 91910 are typically 1/4 AC. These areas are still in the cooler "coastal zone" even though they are not directly on the ocean. SD Bay is only 1.5 miles wide between the NC/CV boat docks and the Silver Strand (Coronado). Living here is very hospitable and requires no A/C (except during a heat wave and we usually lose power at those times, anyway, due to our antiquated electrical grid and overhead lines still present in almost all areas). What I'm trying to say here is that SD South County is actually a great place to live! It's just "convenient" for border-crossing kids to avail themselves of our (mostly excellent) schools!

We also have Bonita (91902) which is landlocked and now surrounded by newer communities with their own (CV) zip codes on its south and east sides whose residents now use Bonita's streets daily to get to I-805/I-5. The "jewel of the South Bay," Bonita (circa 1952 to 1986) is a hilly, semi-rural view community with only FOUR condo complexes and ONE PUD complex. Its SFR stock is zoned just 3 parcels to one AC, on average! 3/4 unincorporated (County of SD) and 1/4 incorporated into the City of CV, Bonita is situated just 3-5 miles from SD Bay and is actually in the semi-coastal zone. It's a FABULOUS place to live, people! ESPecially for families who like to entertain! And the residents of Bonita (among the rest of their SD South County brethren) have hundreds of daily border crossing kids attending their kids' and grandkids' schools (ALL FIVE of their assigned K-12 schools)! Its a dirty shame and a travesty. Some of the houses in Bonita (as well as in a small subdivision in Eastlake (CV) are assessed at over $2M. Yet Bonita's homeowners (if they have school-age kids) must DEAL with this collossal mess on a daily basis.

There would actually be NOTHING WRONG with SOUTH COUNTY's location IF the adjacent Int'l border didn't present so many problems for its residents. The fact that the border IS where it IS obviously deters many qualified buyers from considering the area to purchase in (even though most of it has GREAT weather and is extremely conveniently located)! And rightly so. The border isn't properly managed and hasn't been for decades. Our current problems with rampant northward daily int'l border-crossing students attending our public schools is partly Pres. Obama's fault thru his "amnesty" provision he enacted for children crossing our southern border (both when accompanied by parents AS WELL AS being "unaccompanied"). And, as a nearly lifelong Dem, I voted for Obama TWICE, mind you. The Int'l border is nothing more than a SIEVE of northbound POOR and NEEDY people (incl children) whose parents will, by hook or crook, seek a better life for them, and, in doing so, their children have successfully availed themselves of a US K-12 public education at OUR expense for decades> (This phenomenon much more pronounced in recent years.) And it will NEVER stop until the affected school districts and their schools are mandated to refuse "residency by affidavit" unless it is court-ordered and demand to see a state-issued Driver License or ID card for each and every so-called "parent or guardian" who tries to prove residency for a prospective student. Then, the district must record that DL or State ID NUMBER and make every effort to determine if that (bona-fide school district resident) who "proved residency" for a prospective student whilst residing out of the district/country is actually their "parent." The County HHSA Depts can often be used for this exercise. And the border personnel needs to DEMAND student visas from border-crossing students into the US in the mornings. The only way public school systems are going to sponsor such visas is IF the student's family pays tuition to the district. This will cut down on 99.9% of daily border-crossing students who have for decades "freeloaded" off resident taxpayer's backs.

Any procedure less than this is just another attempt to perpetuate the non-resident school attendance fraud in South SD County which has been going on for decades ... same old, same old. Yes, it is nothing more than "residency fraud," plain and simple.

Dang I missed this post earlier...Lol, like I said, joec. I knew this post was coming next. lol.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 3, 2016 - 10:15pm.

flu wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
joec wrote:
This maybe why certain people simply refuse to buy in certain housing areas in the south bay...schools have a larger population of this happening and I don't know the percentages, but I certainly don't see that many latino/foreign types in my hood simply due to the cost of the housing around here.

Economic segregation seems to be the thing keeping houses in "better" school districts from dropping as much in prices due to higher demand...

Just one less thing to worry about I guess, esp with constant funding issues with school.

joec, the South Bay area has some very nice (and expensive) neighborhoods! In addition, most homeowners in Otay Ranch (91915), built 2001 thru 2006 (but primarily 2003 and later) are each paying on TWO 40-yr CFDs totaling approx 1.6% of their assessed value just in Mello Roos alone (nearly ALL going to the local public school districts and CC)! This is in ADDITION to their ad valoream portion of their tax bill of 1% PLUS approximately .17 of their assessed value in voter approved bonds (mainly local public school and CC construction bonds) for a total of 2.77% to 2.78% of assessed value towards property tax outlay for each affected parcel every year! There are actually a LOT of truly "wealthy" families around here! And yes, many of their ancestors originally came here from MX. Those 2nd, 3rd and even 4th Generation South County residents of Hispanic origin (100%/50%/25%) with LEGAL status actually detest the situation with all these daily border crossing children being allowed to occupy seats in their children's and grandchildren's schools!

The west side of Chula Vista (91910/91911) is almost ALL situated less than two miles from SD Bay (excepting the communities of Sunbow, Deerpark and older surrounds immediately east of I-805). As is Nestor, Egger Highlands and communities in the Otay Mesa area south of CV (92154), all annexed to the City of SD between 1977 and 1979. In addition, portions of 91910 have 1/2 to 4 AC residential lots which can NEVER by upzoned and many corner lots in 91910 are typically 1/4 AC. These areas are still in the cooler "coastal zone" even though they are not directly on the ocean. SD Bay is only 1.5 miles wide between the NC/CV boat docks and the Silver Strand (Coronado). Living here is very hospitable and requires no A/C (except during a heat wave and we usually lose power at those times, anyway, due to our antiquated electrical grid and overhead lines still present in almost all areas). What I'm trying to say here is that SD South County is actually a great place to live! It's just "convenient" for border-crossing kids to avail themselves of our (mostly excellent) schools!

We also have Bonita (91902) which is landlocked and now surrounded by newer communities with their own (CV) zip codes on its south and east sides whose residents now use Bonita's streets daily to get to I-805/I-5. The "jewel of the South Bay," Bonita (circa 1952 to 1986) is a hilly, semi-rural view community with only FOUR condo complexes and ONE PUD complex. Its SFR stock is zoned just 3 parcels to one AC, on average! 3/4 unincorporated (County of SD) and 1/4 incorporated into the City of CV, Bonita is situated just 3-5 miles from SD Bay and is actually in the semi-coastal zone. It's a FABULOUS place to live, people! ESPecially for families who like to entertain! And the residents of Bonita (among the rest of their SD South County brethren) have hundreds of daily border crossing kids attending their kids' and grandkids' schools (ALL FIVE of their assigned K-12 schools)! Its a dirty shame and a travesty. Some of the houses in Bonita (as well as in a small subdivision in Eastlake (CV) are assessed at over $2M. Yet Bonita's homeowners (if they have school-age kids) must DEAL with this collossal mess on a daily basis.

There would actually be NOTHING WRONG with SOUTH COUNTY's location IF the adjacent Int'l border didn't present so many problems for its residents. The fact that the border IS where it IS obviously deters many qualified buyers from considering the area to purchase in (even though most of it has GREAT weather and is extremely conveniently located)! And rightly so. The border isn't properly managed and hasn't been for decades. Our current problems with rampant northward daily int'l border-crossing students attending our public schools is partly Pres. Obama's fault thru his "amnesty" provision he enacted for children crossing our southern border (both when accompanied by parents AS WELL AS being "unaccompanied"). And, as a nearly lifelong Dem, I voted for Obama TWICE, mind you. The Int'l border is nothing more than a SIEVE of northbound POOR and NEEDY people (incl children) whose parents will, by hook or crook, seek a better life for them, and, in doing so, their children have successfully availed themselves of a US K-12 public education at OUR expense for decades> (This phenomenon much more pronounced in recent years.) And it will NEVER stop until the affected school districts and their schools are mandated to refuse "residency by affidavit" unless it is court-ordered and demand to see a state-issued Driver License or ID card for each and every so-called "parent or guardian" who tries to prove residency for a prospective student. Then, the district must record that DL or State ID NUMBER and make every effort to determine if that (bona-fide school district resident) who "proved residency" for a prospective student whilst residing out of the district/country is actually their "parent." The County HHSA Depts can often be used for this exercise. And the border personnel needs to DEMAND student visas from border-crossing students into the US in the mornings. The only way public school systems are going to sponsor such visas is IF the student's family pays tuition to the district. This will cut down on 99.9% of daily border-crossing students who have for decades "freeloaded" off resident taxpayer's backs.

Any procedure less than this is just another attempt to perpetuate the non-resident school attendance fraud in South SD County which has been going on for decades ... same old, same old. Yes, it is nothing more than "residency fraud," plain and simple.

Dang I missed this post earlier...Lol, like I said, joec. I knew this post was coming next. lol.

GOOD! Glad to see you're now paying attention to the important issues, flu!

Submitted by deadzone on July 4, 2016 - 12:36pm.

BG, while I agree that it is a fact that lot of kids cross the border from TJ to go to South Bay schools, the numbers pale in comparison to the number of illegal immigrant kids (or anchor babies of illegals) who are also attending said schools and actually live in San Diego. But given they are here illegally, how is that any better than the border crossers?

I guess you can argue that at least the illegals are physically here and most likely paying some taxes that theoretically go into the community, sales taxes for certain and probably payroll taxes in many cases.

But in terms of degrading the quality of the schools, I would think the illegals are the bigger problem, in either case they are requiring disproportional amount of ESL learning among other things.

Why is it that you are so concerned with the border crossers more so than the general illegal population living here sending their kids to your schools? I agree with you in principal that border crossing students shouldn't be allowed free rides in our public schools, that is obvious, but not sure how big a problem it really is in relation to the bigger gorilla in the room.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 4, 2016 - 3:56pm.

deadzone wrote:
BG, while I agree that it is a fact that lot of kids cross the border from TJ to go to South Bay schools, the numbers pale in comparison to the number of illegal immigrant kids (or anchor babies of illegals) who are also attending said schools and actually live in San Diego. But given they are here illegally, how is that any better than the border crossers?

I guess you can argue that at least the illegals are physically here and most likely paying some taxes that theoretically go into the community, sales taxes for certain and probably payroll taxes in many cases.

But in terms of degrading the quality of the schools, I would think the illegals are the bigger problem, in either case they are requiring disproportional amount of ESL learning among other things.

Why is it that you are so concerned with the border crossers more so than the general illegal population living here sending their kids to your schools? I agree with you in principal that border crossing students shouldn't be allowed free rides in our public schools, that is obvious, but not sure how big a problem it really is in relation to the bigger gorilla in the room.

deadzone, "anchor babies" aren't "illegals." If they RESIDE in the US, they aren't doing anything against the law to attend public school in the US. Nor are "illegal" US RESIDENT children attending school north of the border. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

Kids who cross the border every day to attend public school in CA or TX (which have "residency laws" in place to attend public school) are breaking the law. It doesn't matter whether they are "anchor babies," "illegals" or even Americans of any race or Nationality. If one's immediate family does not live in the US and the student does not live in the US, then they are NOT residents for the purposes of attending public school!

People of all races and Nationalities (even US born Americans) live on the MX side of the border solely for economic reasons. Many of them are paying $450 to $600 month to rent a 4 bdrm house in Tijuana when that same home rents for $2200 month and up in Otay Mesa (SD) just a stone's throw north of the int'l border.

A family can't have it both ways unless they pay tuition. And many families in MX DO PAY tuition for the kids to attend school in the US ... mainly for Catholic (1-12) school north of the border. But these thousands of "seat stealers" enrolled in public school north of the border aren't paying any tuition to any school district. Their parents are "faking" their addresses in order to enroll their kids because the school districts are too lax to do anything about it and that word has been out for decades. They all know they can get away with it indefinitely so their kids (all living in MX) can and will continue to "steal" public school seats in US border counties indefinitely.

In short, this HUGE group has been successfully skirting the public school "residency laws" for decades.

Submitted by Coronita on July 5, 2016 - 6:28am.

So is the lesson to learn from the last couple of threads :

1. Chula Vista is a dump and a terrible place to invest wrto real estate.
2. Since illegals and border kids are a significant problem there, unlike other areas, it has, and will for a long time into the future, create a significant negative impact to home prices there.
3. No one in their right mind should live there, or if they do, should definitely not send their kids to public schools there.

?

Submitted by svelte on July 5, 2016 - 6:40am.

deadzone wrote:

I guess you can argue that at least the illegals are physically here and most likely paying some taxes that theoretically go into the community, sales taxes for certain and probably payroll taxes in many cases.
.

Calif schools also get funding from property taxes, which immigrants, illegal or not, are paying through the homes they lease - part of their rent goes to pay the owner's property tax.

So in reality, illegal immigrants do contribute to schools through:
- Sales and use tax
- Property tax (through rent payments)
- Payroll tax (in some cases)

Where they come up short is on income taxes.

What I think a lot of people fail to factor in is that illegals often work for less $$ than their legal counterparts. This means that those of us who utilize their service, either directly or indirectly, pay less for services. So we've gained financial benefit from that, while we may lose a little financial benefit to send that illegal's kid to school. I bet it is close to a wash, or that we even come out slightly ahead.

It's all in how you look at things.

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2016 - 9:17am.

Economically it may be a wash in terms of illegals benefits vs. contributions in terms of going to public schools. But I'm fairly certain every person on this board would have reservations sending their kids to a school that had an in-ordinate percentage of ESL kids (which means high % of illegal kids/anchor babies).

Submitted by no_such_reality on July 5, 2016 - 9:45am.

svelte wrote:

Calif schools also get funding from property taxes, which immigrants, illegal or not, are paying through the homes they lease - part of their rent goes to pay the owner's property tax.

While they might contribute some property tax, California spends $45 billion in general funds, roughly $7200 per pupil. With Federal funding, that rises to $76 billion, that rises to $12,100 per pupil.

I seriously doubt said children's families are living in $1.25 million dollar homes to cover the cost of a single child. Let alone more than one child or any other services.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 5, 2016 - 11:53am.

flu wrote:
So is the lesson to learn from the last couple of threads :

1. Chula Vista is a dump and a terrible place to invest wrto real estate.
2. Since illegals and border kids are a significant problem there, unlike other areas, it has, and will for a long time into the future, create a significant negative impact to home prices there.
3. No one in their right mind should live there, or if they do, should definitely not send their kids to public schools there.

?

flu, you're twisting my words again, as usual. I never complained about RESIDENT "illegal" kids attending our schools. I complained about the thousands of NON-resident kids attending our public schools (whatever their citizenship status). The likes of YOU and YOUR brethren in 92130 would no doubt be mortified if too many interdistrict transfers were awarded into your public school district, causing your community's RESIDENT kids to be displaced to a school further away from their homes! It wouldn't even matter if these kids were being driven in by parents from SDUSD or even another North County school district every day (much less from Mexico)! You wouldn't like your schools filled up with kids who did not have a legal right to attend them!

And every . single . city in SD North County has plenty of "illegals" living in it ... some much more than others! If they are "residents" who have an actual US address, then their children are allowed by law to attend US schools. Whether that US address is in Otay Mesa (SD), one-half block from the border, in Vista, CA (roughly 50 miles from the border) or in Delhi, CA (approx 426 miles from the border), it doesn't matter. "Illegals" are permitted by law to attend public school in the US IF they have a US-based street address and can prove it to the school district.

And AGAIN, there is no such thing as a "border kid." The kids I'm speaking of here live on the "other side" of the border, i.e. "Mexico."

You can say it, flu . . . M-E-X-I-C-O. See, that wasn't so hard. We need to stop using euphemisms such as "border kids" and call it what it is.

As far as Chula Vista being a "dump," nothing could be further from the truth. Of course, having never gotten off the freeway in Chula Vista, flu wouldn't have any way of knowing that nor would he be able to speak about it intelligently :=0. We have this problem of thousands of kids living in MEXICO stealing seats in our public school classrooms because (1) our school districts are simply "conveniently located" for this group ... nothing more; (2) our corrupt school district administrations have allowed it to go on for decades (for the "headcount money" from Sac); and, (3) border-crossing northbound schoolchildren have not been required to possess and show a Visa sponsored by a particular public school district (or private school) at the US Int'l border in order to pass through it. (This Visa would denote that they are on a payment plan for tuition with the district/school for a particular academic year and would be renewable by the district if tuition remains paid.) We've had sporadic border crackdowns on northbound schoolchildren in the morning last a few days here or there over the years but then the border patrol just goes back to "business as usual." This is a responsibility of the Federal government and the procedures for schoolchildren crossing the border into the US every morning (whether accompanied or unaccompanied) need to be tightened. Thus, the problem is 50% the fault of the Federal government and 50% the fault of SD South County's school districts (purposefully) lax residency policies.

svelte kind of missed the point as well. He well knows we have this problem of border-crossing schoolchildren in Chula Vista and he ALSO knows that plenty of "illegal" students and "anchor babies" attend public school in the north county city which he currently resides.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 5, 2016 - 12:09pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
svelte wrote:

Calif schools also get funding from property taxes, which immigrants, illegal or not, are paying through the homes they lease - part of their rent goes to pay the owner's property tax.

While they might contribute some property tax, California spends $45 billion in general funds, roughly $7200 per pupil. With Federal funding, that rises to $76 billion, that rises to $12,100 per pupil.

I seriously doubt said children's families are living in $1.25 million dollar homes to cover the cost of a single child. Let alone more than one child or any other services.

That is correct, NSR. And that ~$4900 for each public school student in CA that the Federal government chips in for is made up of aid from several different agencies, including two forms of it which are very heavily used by daily border crossing students attending US K-12 public schools. Those are the USDA free school lunch and breakfast programs and Title I funding (for schools with a predominately "low-income" student body). Among other teaching materials and aids, Title I funding provides (expensive) ESL materials and specially-qualified instructors who get an additional pay stipend for teaching ESL.

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2016 - 12:45pm.

Which goes back to my point, the illegals using California schools are a far bigger problem than the border crossers. Sure it is illegal for border crossers to use our schools and I get your frustration. But it is also illegal for non American without a green card to reside in the U.S. in the first place. There are exponentially more of these kids than there are border crossers in South Bay as well as everywhere.

Sure Southbay also gets the double whammy of the border crossers too, but even in S. Bay I guarantee you that there are way more illegals/anchors in your schools than there are border crossers.

Submitted by deadzone on July 5, 2016 - 12:57pm.

Translation for FLU: Even if you successfully closed the loopholes which allowed border crossers, South Bay public schools would still suck.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 5, 2016 - 1:14pm.

deadzone wrote:
Which goes back to my point, the illegals using California schools are a far bigger problem than the border crossers. Sure it is illegal for border crossers to use our schools and I get your frustration. But it is also illegal for non American without a green card to reside in the U.S. in the first place. There are exponentially more of these kids than there are border crossers in South Bay as well as everywhere.

Sure Southbay also gets the double whammy of the border crossers too, but even in S. Bay I guarantee you that there are way more illegals/anchors in your schools than there are border crossers.

Unless all the "illegals" are rounded up and deported (unlikely), then they will continue to live on this side of the border. Many of them have legitimate US addresses in their names because US landlords will rent to them. And an "illegal" (or foreign citizen) can also buy property in the US if they first get themselves issued an ID number from the IRS and pay cash for the property.

The border-crossing student problem is easier to fix because it is illegal for them to attend our schools as a NON-resident without paying tuition. It CAN be fixed by both ICE and the school districts who are allowing these kids to enroll using the addresses of "fake guardians." In doing so, I believe it would eliminate at least 20K students enrolled in SD South County school districts alone. And a few thousand more (1-3K) currently enrolled in the rest of the SD County school districts combined. That's probably enough saved money to bring back daily/weekly art, music and PE to the ALL the elementary schools in the county, as well as buy newer PE equipment for the secondary schools, among other things!

The lack of daily PE classes in CA K-12 public schools in the last 15 years is partly responsible for the childhood obesity epidemic, imho.

I believe that 20-25% of our public school teachers are eligible to retire today (at least in my local districts) so it really wouldn't be a problem. Nor would closing older, unused public school campuses (to avoid utility payments on them) and consolidating the remaining ELIGIBLE student body into the remaining schools.

Submitted by bearishgurl on July 5, 2016 - 1:11pm.

deadzone wrote:
Translation for FLU: Even if you successfully closed the loopholes which allowed border crossers, South Bay public schools would still suck.
I'm sure you said that in jest, deadzone. Many of our schools have scored very high on the STAR and CAHSEE exams (when scores were published) and still rate an 8 or 9 today on greatschools.org.

2 of our HS's were rated in the top 12 HS's in the county for many years.

This is all due to our very dedicated, experienced and competent teaching staff at both CVESD AND SUHSD!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.