Read the article and then answer the question: An anti-immigrant group says in a

Question

Read the article and then answer the question:

An anti-immigrant group says in a new report that Texas spends $1.03 billion a year educating school-age children who are illegally in the country, but the Texas Education Agency said it has no way to determine those costs.
The report issued by Federation for American Immigration Reform on Wednesday said the country spent $7.4 billion a year educating school-age illegal immigrant children. Dan Stein, the executive director of Federation for Immigration Reform, said the money could instead be used to address education needs of citizen and legal immigrant children.
"This report shows the victims are our own kids who are in overcrowded classrooms in severely stressed financial conditions," he said.
Suzanne Middlebrook, a TEA spokeswoman, said the state agency doesn't collect information on illegal immigrant children because school districts cannot require children to submit information showing they are legally in the country.
Officials at the Ysleta Independent School District in El Paso aren't allowed to ask about immigration status, said district spokesman Larry Trejo.
"We don't feel it's a significant impact on us," Trejo said. "It's our responsibility to educate any child who lives in our district. As long as they show proof that they reside here, we will provide them with the best education we possibly can."
FAIR used an Immigration and Naturalization state-by-state breakdown of the overall illegal immigrant population and assumed the undocumented child population was similarly distributed.
"That assumption really isn't examined" in the report, said Walter Ewing, research associate with the Immigration Policy Center of American Immigration Law Foundation in Washington.
Additionally, he said the report suffers from a "very bad case of tunnel vision."
"They are trying to tie undocumented children to the state budget crises … Does that mean we can credit immigrant children for the budget surpluses of 2000, if now they are to blame for the budget crisis of 2003?"
Stein said his group did the report because momentum is growing to re-examine U.S. law that guarantees education to all children regardless of their citizenship status. "In our view, the issue is very quickly assuming the trajectory it asserted in 1994-95," Stein said, referring to California's Proposition 187 movement. The California proposition, ultimately ruled unconstitutional, denied benefits to illegal immigrants.
But Steve Camarota, research director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that supports immigration limits, agrees that educating illegal immigrant schoolchildren is costing billions. But he disagreed that barring them from public education is the solution.
"Administratively, it requires school districts to identify those kids and that's a huge challenge. It also would require, politically, a willingness to kick these kids out of school or tell their parents you've got to pay. Children are a sympathetic population, so it's not going to happen," Camarota said.
Frank Sharry, National Immigration Forum executive director, agreed that the political climate has changed.
He cited the Arizona 2004 ballot initiative to cut off services to immigrants. Last month, eight Arizona Republicans in Congress issued a statement opposing the measure.
"The fact is these kids are here," Sharry said. "Is it better that they go to school or they be on street corners? The answer is obvious."

Question: Outline the argument on both sides of the issue: do legal taxpayers have a social responsibility to fund education for children of illegal immigrants? On the other hand, what responsibilities does a school district have to educate all children? (philosophy Question, Please write 1 and 1/2 page)

Explanation / Answer

Legal tax payers have social responsible to fund education for children when it comes to the children of their own contry. When this criteria is fullfilled they can afford money to the other children who are non immigrants. Without fullfilling this need giving preference to the illegal immigrant children leads to social imbalance.

Argument that cited in this scenario have both sides equally good chances in supporting their own claims. Illegal immigrant children have no legal rights in getting scholarships but as they are leaving in the country with moral prospective giving education to them is also a valid point. At this point the severity of this issue is up to education, later when coming to the opportunities rightfull country citizens face opportunities threat from these students which leads to dissatifaction of citizens. Preference to the citizens is the atmost importance in thsese scenarios can avoid the future civil disobedience.

In illegal immigrants prospective, they claim that opportunities should be given according to the merit based this could benefit the country in its growth. This point is valid if they accquire legal claim. In political prospective government always want to satisfy its own people but the district governers are not concerned with overall countrys claim they just want its district people wellfare. Here clash occurs in between officials of federal government.

District governments have responsibilties in educating all the children as they simply cannot identify the illegal immigrant children which is a huge task and avoiding those children cannot be done which involves a lot of political interferences. As they have to provide quality education in the academic calendar without delay they are not willing to simply drop the illegal immigrant children.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.