Good luck, Murica. When a decent sized portion of your electorate and their representatives don’t access facts, you’re going to need it. And a lot of it.
Lauren Boebert’s migrant misinformation trail winds back to Canada 2006
“Biden is giving each illegal family $2,200 per month plus a free plane ticket and free medical care. If you come to this country illegally, you get everything handed to you on a silver platter. If you’re a struggling American citizen, you get nothing. You actually just subsidize this foolishness.”
— Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), in a tweet, Sept. 8
Members of Congress have access to all sorts of information, some of it classified, that is generally beyond the reach of many Americans. With a phone call or a letter, a House member can obtain detailed statistics from government agencies. So the words of a lawmaker can carry weight.
This tweet by Boebert, for instance, went viral, earning more than 2 million views from more than 13,000 retweets.
We should point out that this claim is false, worthy of Four Pinocchios, and has been debunked over and over. Now, we have traced its start to false information first spread in Canada 17 years ago.
Undocumented immigrants — those Boebert refers to as illegal —do not receive monthly checks. Under a 1980 law, refugees — people who have documented that they are fleeing a war or persecution — may receive a one-time resettlement payment for items such as food, clothing, transportation or rent. Then they may qualify for cash assistance for a period of time not more than one year, with the amount varying by size of family. Afghan evacuees and some Ukrainians were also given a specific benefit by Congress.
It doesn’t require advanced math to reveal how bogus this claim is. The monthly payment claimed by Boebert would mean at least $26,400 a year per migrant. The Center for Immigration Studies, which supports stricter immigration limits and a merit-based immigration system, estimates that at least 2 million migrants have been released into the United States under President Biden.
If Boebert were right, 2 million undocumented immigrants would require an annual budget of about $53 billion — a line item hard to hide in the budget. The annual funding for the entire Department of Homeland Security provided by Congress is only about $60 billion a year.
We’re especially interested in how this misinformation reached a member of Congress in the first place. Let’s follow the misinformation trail.
An unreliable source
Boebert’s staff did not respond to a request for comment but told a Colorado television station that her source was the Gateway Pundit, which is a widely popular news source. Its Facebook page has more than 600,000 followers. It’s also notorious for spreading false information.
NewsGuard, which rates the accuracy of news sources, saysGateway Pundit is “a far-right political website that publishes false and misleading content” and “regularly distorts information and occasionally spreads conspiracy theories.” Gateway Pundit earned from NewsGuard a score of 20 out of 100 — which means the “website is unreliable because it severely violates basic journalistic standards.”
On Sept. 7, Gateway Pundit’s editor, Jim Hoft, posted an article titled “Outrageous! Border Patrol Agent Reveals Biden Regime Gives $2,200 of Taxpayer Money Per Illegal Immigrant Family, Plus a Plane Ticket, Housing, Food, Free Medical Services.”
The article compared the alleged payments to these: “the average American on Social Security receives just $1,400 per month and Maui survivors with only $700.” (The monthly average for Social Security checks is actually $1,837.)
So what was Holt’s source? He referred to a video interview with an anonymous Border Patrol agent, conducted by Todd Bensman, a fellow for the Center for Immigration Studies, and posted on Sept. 6. That interview earned almost 100,000 views.
“They get a check every month … a cost-of-living check, along with housing and food and medical,” the agent said as Bensman kept his camera on a group of migrants at the Texas border. Bensman asked how much the check was and the agent replied: “My understanding, I’ve heard it’s about 2,200 a month.”
In his tweet over the video, Bensman indicated this was not yet solid information: “will need to independently confirm but hmmmm.” But that did not stop Gateway Pundit from running with it as established fact. (Holt did not respond to a request for comment.)
Tucker Carlson’s role
So where did this Border Patrol agent get this information? It’s possible he saw an interview that former Fox host Tucker Carlson conducted on X, formerly known as Twitter, with retired Col. Douglas Macgregor on Aug. 21.
“We hand every alleged asylum seeker, illegal immigrant pouring in through the border in Texas or wherever else, we hand them when they get here, $2,200,” Macgregor told Carlson. “And we put them on that $2,200 diet from there on out, per month. Yet somebody who works all his life retires and draws Social Security gets $1,400.”
On Sept. 9, Bensman posted on X a viral TikTok clip of Macgregor’s remarks. He commented: “$2,200 checks to illegal aliens again? Even short of details, unverified claims like this, like the old song goes, ‘makes ya wanna go hmmmm.’” That tweet received 33,000 views.
A day later, Bensman backed offafter he was challenged by other people on X, including Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director of the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant group. In a tweet that got about 2,500 views, Bensman said that he was beginning to believe the agent had conflated payments given to Afghan refugees with those he claimed were given to all undocumented immigrants crossing the border.
Bensman says he handled the information appropriately.
“My tweets said it was unverified, that I had not independently confirmed the agent’s claim, and I later sent another one out saying he was probably mistaking it for the Afghan payments of up to 3 months,” Bensman said in an email to The Fact Checker. “I was hoping to get to the bottom of it. Maybe an expert would send a link or explain it. I think the agent conflated a couple of programs. But nowhere will anyone read that I called this established truth.”
So where did Macgregor get his information? We received a curious response when we asked.
In an email, Macgregor provided a link to a news story from a conservative Texas radio station, KTRH of Houston, titled: “Biden Giving Illegals $2,200 Per Month Welfare, Only $1,400 to US Retirees.” The story was dated Aug. 28, seven days after his interview.
The article cited an Aug. 22 news release by a group called Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, generally known as ALIPAC. “Biden Admin Giving Illegals $2,200 Per Month Welfare, Only $1,400 to US Retirees,” said the news release’s headline.
What was the source for ALIPAC? Macgregor’s own interview with Carlson.
To bolster his claim, Macgregor also sent us another source — Bensman’s interview with the Border Patrol agent.
We did not hear back from Macgregor after we pointed out that the KTRH article relied on a news release that quoted him and that Bensman had concluded the borderagent spoke in error.
In an interview, Reichlin-Melnick suggested that Macgregor’s source might have been a moderately viral July 24 tweet by a group called Texans for Strong Borders: “Did you know: The government pays out $2,125/month in refugee benefits to refugees resettled in the United States. Meanwhile, Social Security recipients who have paid into the system their entire lives receive $1,400/month on average.” That tweet received 56,000 views. Note, however, that the tweet referred to refugees, not all migrants.
Macgregor also did not respond when we asked if that was the case. Texans for Strong Borders also did not respond to a query about its sourcing.
A zombie claim
The depressing thing about this chronicle of misinformation is that it’s been debunked before.
In 2021, an Instagram post quoted a 2019 tweet by conservative activist Charlie Kirk: “Did you know? The government pays out $2,125/month in refugee benefits to refugees resettled in the United States. Meanwhile, Social Security recipients who have paid into the system their whole live receive $1,400/month on average.” This is word for word the same as the recent Texans for Strong Borders tweet, except with a small typo.
Kirk erred in claiming refugees got a monthly payment that high. A Kirk spokesman told PolitiFact that he was relying on a 2018 fact check— though that fact check did not refer to monthly payments. The Instagram post was deleted; Kirk’s post is still active. (Kirk did not respond to a request for comment.)
And what was PolitiFact fact-checking in 2018? A Facebook meme that made this false claim: “Illegal refugees get $3,874/mo. under the Federal Assistance Program. Our SS checks are approximately $1,200/mo.”
That meme in turn was based on a Facebook post that Snopes in 2017 debunked — a post that referred (falsely) to refugee policy in Canada.
The post showed an authentic image of resettlement payment in Canada — but in a misleading way. The $3,874 in Canadian dollars (or $2,748 in U.S. dollars at the time) was for a family of five and it was a one-time payment — not a monthly one.
But it turns out that even this was not new. In 2006, on a webpage called “Just the Facts,” Canada’s immigration department was compelled to post a statementdebunking the idea that refugees received more financial assistance on a monthly basis than pensioners.
The Bottom Line
This is a good example of the outrage machine in motion. People are so quick to seize on information that confirms a false belief — that immigrants get more than U.S. citizens from the government — that few stop to think twice before spreading it across social media. It’s much easier to click “like” and repost.
About those phones. Gee? How’d they get them? Thank POOTWH.
Another campaign, another outrage over ‘free phones’
It was one of Donald Trump’s familiar asides, offered not in the monotone he uses when powering through the text on the teleprompter, but, instead, with the enthusiasm that accompanies his unscripted hobbyhorses.
Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters in South Carolina, railing against President Biden’s purported indifference to Americans. Biden, he said, “puts China first, Mexico first, Ukraine first, Europe first, Asia first — illegal aliens first above our great veterans.” He repeated that line: “Puts the illegal aliens above our veterans.” And then he started riffing.
“You ever see the illegal aliens, the weirdest thing, they come in by the tens of thousands, sometimes a day, and they all have cellphones. I’m saying, where did they get the cellphones?” he said. “Everybody has a cellphone. They’re all talking in these beautiful cellphones. And they’re expensive ones, too. They’re nice ones.”
He questioned who was paying for the phones, tasking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) with figuring it out. “Our veterans don’t have cellphones, do they?” he continued. “But they put illegal aliens first and everyone first, but he puts America last.”
To a new observer, this would seem like an odd argument. Presumably migrants who have cellphones are paying for their own phones? Why wouldn’t they? But the comparison with the veterans who “don’t have cellphones” is the tell: Trump is suggesting that the government is handing out high-quality cellphones to migrants as part of its purported efforts to flood the country with immigrants.
It’s a bit of patter clumsily repurposed from right-wing media — and one with a surprisingly long lineage. It’s just the latest iteration of the right’s frustration with the idea that the government (and, particularly, an incumbent Democratic president) is spending money on frivolous giveaways (in their estimation) to poor people of color.
When trying to figure out what Trump is talking about, a good place to start is the prime-time programming on his long-favorite cable channel, Fox News. So let’s consider the commentary from host Sean Hannity on Sept. 21. He, as Trump, was casting Biden as hopelessly committed to drawing migrants into the country.
They’re also facilitating — get this! — the arrival of these illegals,” Hannity asserted, “including free flights, free cellphones and free everything else.”
And there it is. Hannity didn’t claim, as Trump did, that some expert had told him that the phones at issue were particularly nice, but the gist was very much the same. Biden giving out phones to migrants, something about which everyone should be aghast.
As is often the case, this idea is rooted in something real. The government does have a program in which people seeking asylum are given mobile devices. But these are not “cellphones” in the way you might assume. They serve as more functional replacements for the ankle monitors that immigration officials used to use to track people awaiting legal hearings.
The devices are made by BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of GEO Group, a company “committed to providing leading, evidence-based rehabilitation programs to individuals while in-custody and post-release into the community.” It has a frequently-asked-questions page about the devices it provides to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for use with migrants, explaining that the devices aren’t smartphones.
“ICE officers log into a secure operating system developed by BI, and assign the device to a participant. Once the device is powered on, participants can easily comply with ICE supervision terms,” the FAQ reads. “… BI Mobile eliminates the participants’ ability to: browse the internet, make calls, send or receive text messages, access the app stores, etc.”
A one-pager produced by BI shows the limited applications available on the devices. Asylum seekers can track documents related to their cases, receive updates on hearings and check in with government officials.
Some asylum seekers have their own phones, of course, or get phones at some point after making their asylum claims. They can turn in their limited-functionality BI devices and install an application (also from BI) called SmartLINK. It has the same functionality seen above; the BI devices are basically vehicles for the app and nothing else.
It’s worth noting that the deployment of SmartLINK and the distribution of devices that included the app began in 2018 — during Trump’s own presidential administration.
So why is Trump amplifying this idea that Biden’s passing out cool new phones to migrants? In part because he’s simply trying to score points on the issue of immigration, obviously. But in part because similar claims have been part of right-wing rhetoric for more than a decade.
In 2012, President Barack Obama (and Vice President Joe Biden) were seeking reelection. In September, a video clip emerged showing a Black woman committing to supporting Obama’s victory not because she agreed with his policies in general but, instead, because he’d given her a phone.
Everybody in Cleveland, all the minorities got an Obamaphone,” she tells the man filming her. “Keep Obama president, you know, he gave us a phone. He’s going to do more.”
The clip spread quickly on the right. It was ostensibly a reflection of how the Obama administration had been giving handouts to his allies. But this wasn’t true; the federal program reducing the cost of phone service for the poor had been in place since the 1980s. In fact, the claim that this was a function of Obama’s largesse had been debunked months before the clip went viral.
Of course, it also went viral because it featured a Black woman, someone who served (explicitly or not) as a stereotype of a poor person of color. This was the tea party era, after all, a time when the right was obsessively focused on government spending — but primarily in contexts where it seemed like the spending benefited out-groups such as the poor and immigrants. The “Obamaphone” controversy slotted into that sentiment perfectly.
So does Trump’s disparagement of Biden in South Carolina. It wasn’t just that Biden was making bad decisions. It wasn’t even that he was making bad decisions to benefit the immigrants Trump is so fond of disparaging. It was that Biden was using the audience’s money to give fancy phones to these people who shouldn’t be here.
As with the Obamaphones and recent complaints from the House Freedom Caucus, the government-spending complaint served as a stalking horse for the real frustration: those worrisome others are getting some sort of benefit.
To an outside observer, this facet of Trump’s comments was not immediately obvious. But to members of his base, who probably saw that Hannity segment or another like it, and who might well have allied with the tea party before it evolved into MAGAism? The point could be presented clumsily but still land with the intended force.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
People don't realize the cost. I'm sure there's a study, but I haven't seen it. But the cost in education alone is enormous. Schools are required to have language specialist, testing done, co-teacher classrooms, free lunch to those who qualify, etc. If I had to guess I'd say the average cost to educate a migrant student is probably 20 to 30% higher than the average. I have had multiple classrooms where the ELL population was high enough that it required a co-teacher in that room to help with the language barrier. And each of those students will see a specialist on a regular basis. Every teacher in the state was also required to get an ELL stamp on their teaching license when they renewed, which cost several hundred dollars of my own money taking classes on my own time. I think some districts made that part of their regular professional development training, but that is also a very expensive cost, to pay for every teacher for a day and hire some specialist or curriculum to get a teacher certified in an area. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying I don't think most people realize what it costs, and I don't know any other country that spends that kind of money.
About those phones. Gee? How’d they get them? Thank POOTWH.
Another campaign, another outrage over ‘free phones’
It was one of Donald Trump’s familiar asides, offered not in the monotone he uses when powering through the text on the teleprompter, but, instead, with the enthusiasm that accompanies his unscripted hobbyhorses.
Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters in South Carolina, railing against President Biden’s purported indifference to Americans. Biden, he said, “puts China first, Mexico first, Ukraine first, Europe first, Asia first — illegal aliens first above our great veterans.” He repeated that line: “Puts the illegal aliens above our veterans.” And then he started riffing.
“You ever see the illegal aliens, the weirdest thing, they come in by the tens of thousands, sometimes a day, and they all have cellphones. I’m saying, where did they get the cellphones?” he said. “Everybody has a cellphone. They’re all talking in these beautiful cellphones. And they’re expensive ones, too. They’re nice ones.”
He questioned who was paying for the phones, tasking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) with figuring it out. “Our veterans don’t have cellphones, do they?” he continued. “But they put illegal aliens first and everyone first, but he puts America last.”
To a new observer, this would seem like an odd argument. Presumably migrants who have cellphones are paying for their own phones? Why wouldn’t they? But the comparison with the veterans who “don’t have cellphones” is the tell: Trump is suggesting that the government is handing out high-quality cellphones to migrants as part of its purported efforts to flood the country with immigrants.
It’s a bit of patter clumsily repurposed from right-wing media — and one with a surprisingly long lineage. It’s just the latest iteration of the right’s frustration with the idea that the government (and, particularly, an incumbent Democratic president) is spending money on frivolous giveaways (in their estimation) to poor people of color.
When trying to figure out what Trump is talking about, a good place to start is the prime-time programming on his long-favorite cable channel, Fox News. So let’s consider the commentary from host Sean Hannity on Sept. 21. He, as Trump, was casting Biden as hopelessly committed to drawing migrants into the country.
They’re also facilitating — get this! — the arrival of these illegals,” Hannity asserted, “including free flights, free cellphones and free everything else.”
And there it is. Hannity didn’t claim, as Trump did, that some expert had told him that the phones at issue were particularly nice, but the gist was very much the same. Biden giving out phones to migrants, something about which everyone should be aghast.
As is often the case, this idea is rooted in something real. The government does have a program in which people seeking asylum are given mobile devices. But these are not “cellphones” in the way you might assume. They serve as more functional replacements for the ankle monitors that immigration officials used to use to track people awaiting legal hearings.
The devices are made by BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of GEO Group, a company “committed to providing leading, evidence-based rehabilitation programs to individuals while in-custody and post-release into the community.” It has a frequently-asked-questions page about the devices it provides to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for use with migrants, explaining that the devices aren’t smartphones.
“ICE officers log into a secure operating system developed by BI, and assign the device to a participant. Once the device is powered on, participants can easily comply with ICE supervision terms,” the FAQ reads. “… BI Mobile eliminates the participants’ ability to: browse the internet, make calls, send or receive text messages, access the app stores, etc.”
A one-pager produced by BI shows the limited applications available on the devices. Asylum seekers can track documents related to their cases, receive updates on hearings and check in with government officials.
Some asylum seekers have their own phones, of course, or get phones at some point after making their asylum claims. They can turn in their limited-functionality BI devices and install an application (also from BI) called SmartLINK. It has the same functionality seen above; the BI devices are basically vehicles for the app and nothing else.
It’s worth noting that the deployment of SmartLINK and the distribution of devices that included the app began in 2018 — during Trump’s own presidential administration.
So why is Trump amplifying this idea that Biden’s passing out cool new phones to migrants? In part because he’s simply trying to score points on the issue of immigration, obviously. But in part because similar claims have been part of right-wing rhetoric for more than a decade.
In 2012, President Barack Obama (and Vice President Joe Biden) were seeking reelection. In September, a video clip emerged showing a Black woman committing to supporting Obama’s victory not because she agreed with his policies in general but, instead, because he’d given her a phone.
Everybody in Cleveland, all the minorities got an Obamaphone,” she tells the man filming her. “Keep Obama president, you know, he gave us a phone. He’s going to do more.”
The clip spread quickly on the right. It was ostensibly a reflection of how the Obama administration had been giving handouts to his allies. But this wasn’t true; the federal program reducing the cost of phone service for the poor had been in place since the 1980s. In fact, the claim that this was a function of Obama’s largesse had been debunked months before the clip went viral.
Of course, it also went viral because it featured a Black woman, someone who served (explicitly or not) as a stereotype of a poor person of color. This was the tea party era, after all, a time when the right was obsessively focused on government spending — but primarily in contexts where it seemed like the spending benefited out-groups such as the poor and immigrants. The “Obamaphone” controversy slotted into that sentiment perfectly.
So does Trump’s disparagement of Biden in South Carolina. It wasn’t just that Biden was making bad decisions. It wasn’t even that he was making bad decisions to benefit the immigrants Trump is so fond of disparaging. It was that Biden was using the audience’s money to give fancy phones to these people who shouldn’t be here.
As with the Obamaphones and recent complaints from the House Freedom Caucus, the government-spending complaint served as a stalking horse for the real frustration: those worrisome others are getting some sort of benefit.
To an outside observer, this facet of Trump’s comments was not immediately obvious. But to members of his base, who probably saw that Hannity segment or another like it, and who might well have allied with the tea party before it evolved into MAGAism? The point could be presented clumsily but still land with the intended force.
Nice article but with my own two eyes I witnessed people streaming the internet. Dozens.
That last sentence is taking a shot at anyone, like myself, asking the questions. I am not MAGA so that is a ridiculous statement to me. Don't watch Hannity either, I just live here and see it.
Like I said, I'll ask them about the phones when I am in that area again and the scooters but I read an article about that.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
People don't realize the cost. I'm sure there's a study, but I haven't seen it. But the cost in education alone is enormous. Schools are required to have language specialist, testing done, co-teacher classrooms, free lunch to those who qualify, etc. If I had to guess I'd say the average cost to educate a migrant student is probably 20 to 30% higher than the average. I have had multiple classrooms where the ELL population was high enough that it required a co-teacher in that room to help with the language barrier. And each of those students will see a specialist on a regular basis. Every teacher in the state was also required to get an ELL stamp on their teaching license when they renewed, which cost several hundred dollars of my own money taking classes on my own time. I think some districts made that part of their regular professional development training, but that is also a very expensive cost, to pay for every teacher for a day and hire some specialist or curriculum to get a teacher certified in an area. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying I don't think most people realize what it costs, and I don't know any other country that spends that kind of money.
So. Forcing essentially every teacher to get an ELL cert is pretty bold.
What the schools are not doing is hiring ELL's and just stuffing the classrooms here in NY. I don't know if you'll find this in any articles? I've got plenty of teacher friends that I hear it from.
Class sizes in the city are up to 30+ now. No ELL or special ed certs in the classes.
I am an authorized OSHA trainer and I can't do anything other than English. It would take me twice the amount of time to teach the class because I would also have to have an interpreter.
The schools aren't allowed to turn the kids away, which is fine but damn, get them the tools they need. We used to have other classes for these kids because they need more one on one time. The new teaching standards doesn't want to split the kids up as they believe they will achieve more in the long run. Sure for 1 or 2 kids maybe but not for a dozen in a class of 20+.
We are failing the kids in the classroom.
We are also failing the teachers whom are judged by their classes grades. Throw a few ELL kids in there and when they fail it reflects poorly on the teachers.
Cost? Sure there is. A schools budget doesn't always cover it though. It's supposed to by law. As much as we spend on education there's always things slipping through the cracks.
Read above about the cost of housing migrants I posted a bit ago. There is always a cost.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
They are sending pamphlets on the border stating NOT to come to NY but word spreads very quickly on where to go to hence the influx.
I agree we aren't doing them any favors and yes their tune has changed.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
People don't realize the cost. I'm sure there's a study, but I haven't seen it. But the cost in education alone is enormous. Schools are required to have language specialist, testing done, co-teacher classrooms, free lunch to those who qualify, etc. If I had to guess I'd say the average cost to educate a migrant student is probably 20 to 30% higher than the average. I have had multiple classrooms where the ELL population was high enough that it required a co-teacher in that room to help with the language barrier. And each of those students will see a specialist on a regular basis. Every teacher in the state was also required to get an ELL stamp on their teaching license when they renewed, which cost several hundred dollars of my own money taking classes on my own time. I think some districts made that part of their regular professional development training, but that is also a very expensive cost, to pay for every teacher for a day and hire some specialist or curriculum to get a teacher certified in an area. I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying I don't think most people realize what it costs, and I don't know any other country that spends that kind of money.
So. Forcing essentially every teacher to get an ELL cert is pretty bold.
What the schools are not doing is hiring ELL's and just stuffing the classrooms here in NY. I don't know if you'll find this in any articles? I've got plenty of teacher friends that I hear it from.
Class sizes in the city are up to 30+ now. No ELL or special ed certs in the classes.
I am an authorized OSHA trainer and I can't do anything other than English. It would take me twice the amount of time to teach the class because I would also have to have an interpreter.
The schools aren't allowed to turn the kids away, which is fine but damn, get them the tools they need. We used to have other classes for these kids because they need more one on one time. The new teaching standards doesn't want to split the kids up as they believe they will achieve more in the long run. Sure for 1 or 2 kids maybe but not for a dozen in a class of 20+.
We are failing the kids in the classroom.
We are also failing the teachers whom are judged by their classes grades. Throw a few ELL kids in there and when they fail it reflects poorly on the teachers.
Cost? Sure there is. A schools budget doesn't always cover it though. It's supposed to by law. As much as we spend on education there's always things slipping through the cracks.
Read above about the cost of housing migrants I posted a bit ago. There is always a cost.
I've had classes of 40+ when I was in San Diego. It was nuts. In Colorado is was almost always around 30-35.
The forced ELL cert was a joke. It's just a way for the government to say they are serving the minorities. I can't say I learned anything new that I didn't already do. But with so many ELLs, and more of them struggle in school or drop out so they have to do something. The solution is put more work on the teachers of course. It's also difficult to fail an ELL student. I have to provide more paperwork showing I tried all these strategies and document a lot more. When the reality is, the kid doesn't speak English, so it shouldn't be a shock he doesn't pass a chemistry class offered in English. But if I don't document that I did X Y and Z and fail him, I can get into legal trouble.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
What choice did the city have? NY decided to be a sanctuary city 40 years ago to protect the police (by not deporting migrants helping criminal investigations) and the law says we must give asylum seekers a chance to become citizens.
instead of trying to solve this American made problem (exporting made in USA guns to Latin America and importing drugs) we look to build walls and pointing fingers.
these people could care less about “making it” in high cost NYC
They are more worried about a U.S. made AR 15 staring them in the face in their home countries.
Man have Mayor Adams and Gov Hochul changed their tune on migrants from 2 years ago. Watching the Gov outright tell migrants not to come here is pretty surreal. Not sure what they expected would happen. I the whole “come on in we will take care of you “ was a great political sound bite but these are peoples lives they’re fucking with. This isn’t an easy city to make it in for people with way more resources than these poor migrants…. I cant see how this ends good for them. It’d be nice if we had some common sense about this problem but these migrants continue to be political pawns for politicians.
What choice did the city have? NY decided to be a sanctuary city 40 years ago to protect the police (by not deporting migrants helping criminal investigations) and the law says we must give asylum seekers a chance to become citizens.
instead of trying to solve this American made problem (exporting made in USA guns to Latin America and importing drugs) we look to build walls and pointing fingers.
these people could care less about “making it” in high cost NYC
They are more worried about a U.S. made AR 15 staring them in the face in their home countries.
It was a law that they wanted to change because they were inundated with so many people.
If the people are living in squalor and poverty I would think they'd care.
We actually discussed if we could fix what is going on down there but like you said, we've meddled in the affairs of others and how we most likely got here.
These might be old now considering that they are now fast tracking work permits like the article says but this wasn't the case a dew weeks ago.
The housing thing is also correct as Adams has publicly stated that there might not be a room for you and that is true considering we are putting people on Randal's Island and school gyms. The article is correct in that migrants are still being housed because it is a law in NYC.
There isn't anything shocking in the article that I haven't mentioned on here, good article though, thx Nick.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
You must apply for asylum within 1 year of the date of your last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:
Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing; and You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
You may apply for affirmative asylum by submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to USCIS.
If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear (NTA), and refer your case to an immigration judge with the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The immigration judge conducts a “de novo” hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. In certain circumstances, if USCIS does not have jurisdiction over your case, the asylum office will issue a Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing.
See the section “Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR” below if this situation applies to you.
If you were previously issued an NTA that was not filed and docketed with the EOIR immigration court, or your previously issued NTA was filed and docketed with EOIR either shortly before (within 21 days) or after you filed your Form I-589 with USCIS, USCIS will refile your NTA (if necessary) and send your Form I-589 to the immigration court for adjudication.
To determine where to file your Form I-589, follow the instructions under the “Where to File” section on our Form I-589 page.
For more information, please see What Happens After You File Your Form I-589 With USCIS.
You may live in the United States while your Form I-589 is pending before USCIS.
If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your Form I-589 is pending with the immigration judge. Asylum applicants are not authorized to work unless you meet certain requirements.
For more information, please see Permission to Work in the United States. Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Please see the Affirmative Asylum Process for step-by-step information on applying for asylum through the affirmative asylum process.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree with a lot of this. But here's my response;
It's been a problem longer than I've been alive, so Biden alone isn't to blame. But each month and year seems like we are reaching record numbers of illegal crossings, so it is more than fair to criticize the current administration over it.
The point about due process. I believe there are exceptions for migrants caught illegally crossing at the border, the same due process doesn't apply as if I were accused of a crime as already an established living in the country. I don't know all the differences, but the laws at and near the border are different. What many people criticize is the "catch and release" practice. Just give them a court appearance date 3 months down the road knowing 99% of them never show up, and just shrug our shoulders and say "o well, we tried.". That whole concept is ridiculous. If we insist on due process, detain them short term and process them quickly. I know it's easier said than done, and it's becoming a catch 22. We don't have the manpower or facilities to do that anymore. Migrants know that so they come in larger numbers. Since there's too many to properly process we don't, and the cycle repeats I don't know what the answer is. But its obvious to anyone who bothers to look, that the current system is broken.
I agree with a lot of this. But here's my response;
It's been a problem longer than I've been alive, so Biden alone isn't to blame. But each month and year seems like we are reaching record numbers of illegal crossings, so it is more than fair to criticize the current administration over it.
The point about due process. I believe there are exceptions for migrants caught illegally crossing at the border, the same due process doesn't apply as if I were accused of a crime as already an established living in the country. I don't know all the differences, but the laws at and near the border are different. What many people criticize is the "catch and release" practice. Just give them a court appearance date 3 months down the road knowing 99% of them never show up, and just shrug our shoulders and say "o well, we tried.". That whole concept is ridiculous. If we insist on due process, detain them short term and process them quickly. I know it's easier said than done, and it's becoming a catch 22. We don't have the manpower or facilities to do that anymore. Migrants know that so they come in larger numbers. Since there's too many to properly process we don't, and the cycle repeats I don't know what the answer is. But its obvious to anyone who bothers to look, that the current system is broken.
immigration isnt criminal. its civil.
it doesnt matter where someone crosses. tgeuhave the right to apply for asylum.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I agree with a lot of this. But here's my response;
It's been a problem longer than I've been alive, so Biden alone isn't to blame. But each month and year seems like we are reaching record numbers of illegal crossings, so it is more than fair to criticize the current administration over it.
The point about due process. I believe there are exceptions for migrants caught illegally crossing at the border, the same due process doesn't apply as if I were accused of a crime as already an established living in the country. I don't know all the differences, but the laws at and near the border are different. What many people criticize is the "catch and release" practice. Just give them a court appearance date 3 months down the road knowing 99% of them never show up, and just shrug our shoulders and say "o well, we tried.". That whole concept is ridiculous. If we insist on due process, detain them short term and process them quickly. I know it's easier said than done, and it's becoming a catch 22. We don't have the manpower or facilities to do that anymore. Migrants know that so they come in larger numbers. Since there's too many to properly process we don't, and the cycle repeats I don't know what the answer is. But its obvious to anyone who bothers to look, that the current system is broken.
NY is speeding up the work permit process to get people from out of the shelters but youre right. Record numbers of people are coming in.
I agree with a lot of this. But here's my response;
It's been a problem longer than I've been alive, so Biden alone isn't to blame. But each month and year seems like we are reaching record numbers of illegal crossings, so it is more than fair to criticize the current administration over it.
The point about due process. I believe there are exceptions for migrants caught illegally crossing at the border, the same due process doesn't apply as if I were accused of a crime as already an established living in the country. I don't know all the differences, but the laws at and near the border are different. What many people criticize is the "catch and release" practice. Just give them a court appearance date 3 months down the road knowing 99% of them never show up, and just shrug our shoulders and say "o well, we tried.". That whole concept is ridiculous. If we insist on due process, detain them short term and process them quickly. I know it's easier said than done, and it's becoming a catch 22. We don't have the manpower or facilities to do that anymore. Migrants know that so they come in larger numbers. Since there's too many to properly process we don't, and the cycle repeats I don't know what the answer is. But its obvious to anyone who bothers to look, that the current system is broken.
immigration isnt criminal. its civil.
it doesnt matter where someone crosses. tgeuhave the right to apply for asylum.
and if CONGRESS chooses to not do what does need done, how does it fall on the Admin in a given term?
How is it not criminal? There are laws on how to enter, and if you don't follow it, you've broken the law and can face fines and/or jail time.
I don't know all the requirements, but there is expedited removal, which is a a statute from the 90s that allows deportation without due process in some cases. I believe some the the requirements are within a certain proximity of the border. Which makes sense, I mean, if a border agent witnesses people crossing illegally, they should be allowed to turn them back and say "nope, not allowed to cross here, go to the border entry." Compared to someone found in the back of a truck 200 miles from the border with 15 other people..
Kind of sad cartoon when it’s your gun exports causing this problem.
I'd say it's a wee bit more than gun running that's driving this, just a hunch.
Sure poverty and ineffective governments are high on the list but what makes people flea faster than an american made assault weapon pointed at their heads?
Kind of sad cartoon when it’s your gun exports causing this problem.
I'd say it's a wee bit more than gun running that's driving this, just a hunch.
Sure poverty and ineffective governments are high on the list but what makes people flea faster than an american made assault weapon pointed at their heads?
I think the AK is more widely used than the M4, no?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Europe’s right-wing drift takes its most alarming turn in Germany
NORDHAUSEN, Germany — Populist, nationalist and illiberal parties are rising across Europe, peddling a rancid brew of intolerance toward migrants, LGBTQ+ people, Ukraine’s survival and, often, the niceties of democracy itself. But in few places has a right-wing party so extreme surged so quickly as in Germany — even as some of its most prominent leaders trade in barely veiled echoes of the country’s Nazi past.
It’s even more chilling that Alternative for Germany, known as AfD, is now the most popular party across most of the former East Germany, including in one state, Thuringia, where Hitler’s National Socialist Party had its first great success. And it remains to be seen whether the country’s more populous, prosperous and globalized western states will hold out as a firewall against the ethno-nationalist blaze sweeping Europe’s biggest, most consequential nation.
“Whether Germans have learned from their history is an open question,” Sergej Lochthofen, the retired editor of Thuringia’s biggest newspaper, told me.
In France, the main right-wing party, for decades the refuge of scoundrels besotted with World War II’s collaborationist Vichy regime, now vies for the top spot in national polling. Rightist parties either lead governments or share power in Italy, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere.
On Saturday, populism’s rise struck Slovakia, with the parliamentary election success of the overtly pro-Russian, nationalist Smer party, which vows to end support for Ukraine.
But the surge toward a nationalist, populist extremism has been particularly pronounced in Germany, and no other places perhaps have more-dangerous implications for Europe’s stability.
“This is the paradox,” Michael Mickenberg, a scholar of right-wing movements, told me. “The usual pattern is that radical positions repel voters. Here you see both radicalization of the party and growing electoral support.”
AfD remains anathema in polite German society, its elected representatives shunned in the national parliament and state legislatures where they have a foothold. But its appeal has grown as Germany slipped into recession this year, even as the country made a historic pivot from defense-spending laggard to Europe’s leading military supplier for Ukraine, and saw a surge in asylum seekers.
Bigotry and overt racism, along with calls for mass deportation, are staples of AfD’s rhetoric. One prominent figure in the party, Björn Höcke, has suggested that “Africans’ reproductive habits” were unacceptable in Germany, and called on Germans to stop atoning for Nazi crimes, insisting they take a more “positive” view of the nation’s history.
Höcke is facing a criminal charge for ending a 2021 speech with a known Nazi slogan (“Everything for Germany”); his lawyer has said the charge is unwarranted, according to the Guardian. Many in Germany regard Höcke as a fringe figure, but he is also widely considered the party’s de facto leader. German state security service regards the party as a threat.
Yet in recent polls, AfD is now Germany’s second-most popular party, commanding the support of nearly one-quarter of respondents and leading all three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s awkward center-left governing coalition.
AfD is No. 1 in most of the territory that constitutes the former East Germany. Its strong showing across much of the country is shocking in a multiparty system where one-quarter of the national vote in past elections has been enough to lead the pack. An equal concern is that the Scholz government lacks any apparent strategy to respond.
I recently went to Thuringia to get a closer look at AfD in its strongholds. In the small town of Nordhausen, where the Nazis developed the V-2 rocket — the miracle weapon that Adolf Hitler thought would bring Britain to its knees — I met with Jörg Prophet, a local AfD figure. He lost a recent mayoral election, but still managed about 45 percent of the vote.
Prophet, 61, was raised in communist East Germany, where revisionist World War II history framed the capitalist West, not Hitler and his jackbooted legions, as the war’s real villain. The politician clings to some of that twisted history. The Allies whose bombing leveled Nordhausen, he said a few years ago, “showed as little morality” as the Nazis. That’s a staggering assertion in Thuringia, where tens of thousands of prisoners died at Buchenwald, one of the Third Reich’s earliest and biggest concentration camps.
An engineer who has built a family automotive business, Prophet was a pleasant companion for drinks — courtly manners, civil tone, earnest presentation. He sidestepped questions about Höcke and his indictment for using the Nazi slogan. Höcke is “an easy target,” Prophet said.
Yet Prophet and another AfD official who tagged along barely concealed their contempt for Germany’s large migrant community and the recent wave of asylum seekers.
They insisted the party is the only one in Germany squarely addressing the immigration problem, which they characterized in stereotypes — migrants who are violent; refuse to work; make little effort to learn the German language and customs; and live off the state’s generous social benefits.
“We are not an immigration country,” Prophet said, heedless of the roughly 8 million residents of non-European Union backgrounds. “The solution is to require migrants to work and adhere to our rules. If they don’t, then you have to say, ‘Thanks, but please go home.’”
Mass deportation is a fever dream in a country beset by a severe shortage of workers, including in blue-collar roles. The idea has bloomed in the fertile ground of the former East German states, where incomes, pensions and inherited wealth are a fraction of those in the west. In the eastern states — older, whiter and suspicious of globalization — resentment runs deep. Even three decades after reunification, none of the 40 firms in the DAX index, Germany’s equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, are based there.
The Scholz government appears to have no fix, and it has floundered in trying to fashion a policy that would temper the magnetic pull that Germany’s social welfare benefits represent for asylum seekers who make it to Europe. Scholz himself — colorless, cautious, fully committed to Ukraine’s increasingly unpopular cause — looks like the wrong man at the wrong time to take on AfD. He has mostly ignored the party even as it overtook his own Social Democrats, which won Germany’s 2021 elections.
Ignoring AfD seems a losing strategy, given Germany’s lackluster leadership. “It would help to have more inspirational political leaders in the vein of Churchill or Willy Brandt,” said Minkenberg.
Yet no such towering figures are waiting in the wings, and no German politicians have found the right messaging to turn back AfD’s gains. Without that countervailing force, Europe’s already precarious future might soon look even grimmer.
Comments
In NY we spend $5157.90 a month per on the current 57,000 migrants. You'll have to do the math though.
9,800,000/57,000 x 30
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/08/09/city-on-track-to-spend--12-billion-on-migrants-without-federal--state-intervention#:~:text=Currently, the city is spending,under for the last year.
If these numbers are right then that's a lot of money and you can see why people get angry. To say that we give them a check though is ridiculous.
Another campaign, another outrage over ‘free phones’
Trump was speaking to a crowd of supporters in South Carolina, railing against President Biden’s purported indifference to Americans. Biden, he said, “puts China first, Mexico first, Ukraine first, Europe first, Asia first — illegal aliens first above our great veterans.” He repeated that line: “Puts the illegal aliens above our veterans.” And then he started riffing.
“You ever see the illegal aliens, the weirdest thing, they come in by the tens of thousands, sometimes a day, and they all have cellphones. I’m saying, where did they get the cellphones?” he said. “Everybody has a cellphone. They’re all talking in these beautiful cellphones. And they’re expensive ones, too. They’re nice ones.”
He questioned who was paying for the phones, tasking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) with figuring it out. “Our veterans don’t have cellphones, do they?” he continued. “But they put illegal aliens first and everyone first, but he puts America last.”
To a new observer, this would seem like an odd argument. Presumably migrants who have cellphones are paying for their own phones? Why wouldn’t they? But the comparison with the veterans who “don’t have cellphones” is the tell: Trump is suggesting that the government is handing out high-quality cellphones to migrants as part of its purported efforts to flood the country with immigrants.
It’s a bit of patter clumsily repurposed from right-wing media — and one with a surprisingly long lineage. It’s just the latest iteration of the right’s frustration with the idea that the government (and, particularly, an incumbent Democratic president) is spending money on frivolous giveaways (in their estimation) to poor people of color.
When trying to figure out what Trump is talking about, a good place to start is the prime-time programming on his long-favorite cable channel, Fox News. So let’s consider the commentary from host Sean Hannity on Sept. 21. He, as Trump, was casting Biden as hopelessly committed to drawing migrants into the country.
They’re also facilitating — get this! — the arrival of these illegals,” Hannity asserted, “including free flights, free cellphones and free everything else.”
And there it is. Hannity didn’t claim, as Trump did, that some expert had told him that the phones at issue were particularly nice, but the gist was very much the same. Biden giving out phones to migrants, something about which everyone should be aghast.
As is often the case, this idea is rooted in something real. The government does have a program in which people seeking asylum are given mobile devices. But these are not “cellphones” in the way you might assume. They serve as more functional replacements for the ankle monitors that immigration officials used to use to track people awaiting legal hearings.
The devices are made by BI Incorporated, a subsidiary of GEO Group, a company “committed to providing leading, evidence-based rehabilitation programs to individuals while in-custody and post-release into the community.” It has a frequently-asked-questions page about the devices it provides to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for use with migrants, explaining that the devices aren’t smartphones.
“ICE officers log into a secure operating system developed by BI, and assign the device to a participant. Once the device is powered on, participants can easily comply with ICE supervision terms,” the FAQ reads. “… BI Mobile eliminates the participants’ ability to: browse the internet, make calls, send or receive text messages, access the app stores, etc.”
A one-pager produced by BI shows the limited applications available on the devices. Asylum seekers can track documents related to their cases, receive updates on hearings and check in with government officials.
Some asylum seekers have their own phones, of course, or get phones at some point after making their asylum claims. They can turn in their limited-functionality BI devices and install an application (also from BI) called SmartLINK. It has the same functionality seen above; the BI devices are basically vehicles for the app and nothing else.
It’s worth noting that the deployment of SmartLINK and the distribution of devices that included the app began in 2018 — during Trump’s own presidential administration.
So why is Trump amplifying this idea that Biden’s passing out cool new phones to migrants? In part because he’s simply trying to score points on the issue of immigration, obviously. But in part because similar claims have been part of right-wing rhetoric for more than a decade.
In 2012, President Barack Obama (and Vice President Joe Biden) were seeking reelection. In September, a video clip emerged showing a Black woman committing to supporting Obama’s victory not because she agreed with his policies in general but, instead, because he’d given her a phone.
Everybody in Cleveland, all the minorities got an Obamaphone,” she tells the man filming her. “Keep Obama president, you know, he gave us a phone. He’s going to do more.”
The clip spread quickly on the right. It was ostensibly a reflection of how the Obama administration had been giving handouts to his allies. But this wasn’t true; the federal program reducing the cost of phone service for the poor had been in place since the 1980s. In fact, the claim that this was a function of Obama’s largesse had been debunked months before the clip went viral.
Of course, it also went viral because it featured a Black woman, someone who served (explicitly or not) as a stereotype of a poor person of color. This was the tea party era, after all, a time when the right was obsessively focused on government spending — but primarily in contexts where it seemed like the spending benefited out-groups such as the poor and immigrants. The “Obamaphone” controversy slotted into that sentiment perfectly.
So does Trump’s disparagement of Biden in South Carolina. It wasn’t just that Biden was making bad decisions. It wasn’t even that he was making bad decisions to benefit the immigrants Trump is so fond of disparaging. It was that Biden was using the audience’s money to give fancy phones to these people who shouldn’t be here.
As with the Obamaphones and recent complaints from the House Freedom Caucus, the government-spending complaint served as a stalking horse for the real frustration: those worrisome others are getting some sort of benefit.
To an outside observer, this facet of Trump’s comments was not immediately obvious. But to members of his base, who probably saw that Hannity segment or another like it, and who might well have allied with the tea party before it evolved into MAGAism? The point could be presented clumsily but still land with the intended force.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/26/trump-outrage-free-phones/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Schools are required to have language specialist, testing done, co-teacher classrooms, free lunch to those who qualify, etc. If I had to guess I'd say the average cost to educate a migrant student is probably 20 to 30% higher than the average. I have had multiple classrooms where the ELL population was high enough that it required a co-teacher in that room to help with the language barrier. And each of those students will see a specialist on a regular basis. Every teacher in the state was also required to get an ELL stamp on their teaching license when they renewed, which cost several hundred dollars of my own money taking classes on my own time. I think some districts made that part of their regular professional development training, but that is also a very expensive cost, to pay for every teacher for a day and hire some specialist or curriculum to get a teacher certified in an area.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing it. I'm just saying I don't think most people realize what it costs, and I don't know any other country that spends that kind of money.
That last sentence is taking a shot at anyone, like myself, asking the questions. I am not MAGA so that is a ridiculous statement to me. Don't watch Hannity either, I just live here and see it.
Like I said, I'll ask them about the phones when I am in that area again and the scooters but I read an article about that.
What the schools are not doing is hiring ELL's and just stuffing the classrooms here in NY. I don't know if you'll find this in any articles? I've got plenty of teacher friends that I hear it from.
Class sizes in the city are up to 30+ now.
No ELL or special ed certs in the classes.
I am an authorized OSHA trainer and I can't do anything other than English. It would take me twice the amount of time to teach the class because I would also have to have an interpreter.
The schools aren't allowed to turn the kids away, which is fine but damn, get them the tools they need. We used to have other classes for these kids because they need more one on one time. The new teaching standards doesn't want to split the kids up as they believe they will achieve more in the long run. Sure for 1 or 2 kids maybe but not for a dozen in a class of 20+.
We are failing the kids in the classroom.
We are also failing the teachers whom are judged by their classes grades. Throw a few ELL kids in there and when they fail it reflects poorly on the teachers.
Cost? Sure there is. A schools budget doesn't always cover it though. It's supposed to by law. As much as we spend on education there's always things slipping through the cracks.
Read above about the cost of housing migrants I posted a bit ago. There is always a cost.
I agree we aren't doing them any favors and yes their tune has changed.
In Colorado is was almost always around 30-35.
The forced ELL cert was a joke. It's just a way for the government to say they are serving the minorities. I can't say I learned anything new that I didn't already do. But with so many ELLs, and more of them struggle in school or drop out so they have to do something. The solution is put more work on the teachers of course.
It's also difficult to fail an ELL student. I have to provide more paperwork showing I tried all these strategies and document a lot more. When the reality is, the kid doesn't speak English, so it shouldn't be a shock he doesn't pass a chemistry class offered in English. But if I don't document that I did X Y and Z and fail him, I can get into legal trouble.
instead of trying to solve this American made problem (exporting made in USA guns to Latin America and importing drugs) we look to build walls and pointing fingers.
these people could care less about “making it” in high cost NYC
They are more worried about a U.S. made AR 15 staring them in the face in their home countries.
If the people are living in squalor and poverty I would think they'd care.
We actually discussed if we could fix what is going on down there but like you said, we've meddled in the affairs of others and how we most likely got here.
These might be old now considering that they are now fast tracking work permits like the article says but this wasn't the case a dew weeks ago.
The housing thing is also correct as Adams has publicly stated that there might not be a room for you and that is true considering we are putting people on Randal's Island and school gyms. The article is correct in that migrants are still being housed because it is a law in NYC.
There isn't anything shocking in the article that I haven't mentioned on here, good article though, thx Nick.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It's been a problem longer than I've been alive, so Biden alone isn't to blame. But each month and year seems like we are reaching record numbers of illegal crossings, so it is more than fair to criticize the current administration over it.
The point about due process. I believe there are exceptions for migrants caught illegally crossing at the border, the same due process doesn't apply as if I were accused of a crime as already an established living in the country. I don't know all the differences, but the laws at and near the border are different.
What many people criticize is the "catch and release" practice. Just give them a court appearance date 3 months down the road knowing 99% of them never show up, and just shrug our shoulders and say "o well, we tried.". That whole concept is ridiculous. If we insist on due process, detain them short term and process them quickly.
I know it's easier said than done, and it's becoming a catch 22. We don't have the manpower or facilities to do that anymore. Migrants know that so they come in larger numbers. Since there's too many to properly process we don't, and the cycle repeats
I don't know what the answer is. But its obvious to anyone who bothers to look, that the current system is broken.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I don't know all the requirements, but there is expedited removal, which is a a statute from the 90s that allows deportation without due process in some cases. I believe some the the requirements are within a certain proximity of the border. Which makes sense, I mean, if a border agent witnesses people crossing illegally, they should be allowed to turn them back and say "nope, not allowed to cross here, go to the border entry." Compared to someone found in the back of a truck 200 miles from the border with 15 other people..
Whats the skinny on the moped set’s cell phone possession? Are they Obama phones or not?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Sure poverty and ineffective governments are high on the list but what makes people flea faster than an american made assault weapon pointed at their heads?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Europe’s right-wing drift takes its most alarming turn in Germany
NORDHAUSEN, Germany — Populist, nationalist and illiberal parties are rising across Europe, peddling a rancid brew of intolerance toward migrants, LGBTQ+ people, Ukraine’s survival and, often, the niceties of democracy itself. But in few places has a right-wing party so extreme surged so quickly as in Germany — even as some of its most prominent leaders trade in barely veiled echoes of the country’s Nazi past.
It’s even more chilling that Alternative for Germany, known as AfD, is now the most popular party across most of the former East Germany, including in one state, Thuringia, where Hitler’s National Socialist Party had its first great success. And it remains to be seen whether the country’s more populous, prosperous and globalized western states will hold out as a firewall against the ethno-nationalist blaze sweeping Europe’s biggest, most consequential nation.
“Whether Germans have learned from their history is an open question,” Sergej Lochthofen, the retired editor of Thuringia’s biggest newspaper, told me.
In France, the main right-wing party, for decades the refuge of scoundrels besotted with World War II’s collaborationist Vichy regime, now vies for the top spot in national polling. Rightist parties either lead governments or share power in Italy, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere.
On Saturday, populism’s rise struck Slovakia, with the parliamentary election success of the overtly pro-Russian, nationalist Smer party, which vows to end support for Ukraine.
But the surge toward a nationalist, populist extremism has been particularly pronounced in Germany, and no other places perhaps have more-dangerous implications for Europe’s stability.
“This is the paradox,” Michael Mickenberg, a scholar of right-wing movements, told me. “The usual pattern is that radical positions repel voters. Here you see both radicalization of the party and growing electoral support.”
AfD remains anathema in polite German society, its elected representatives shunned in the national parliament and state legislatures where they have a foothold. But its appeal has grown as Germany slipped into recession this year, even as the country made a historic pivot from defense-spending laggard to Europe’s leading military supplier for Ukraine, and saw a surge in asylum seekers.
Bigotry and overt racism, along with calls for mass deportation, are staples of AfD’s rhetoric. One prominent figure in the party, Björn Höcke, has suggested that “Africans’ reproductive habits” were unacceptable in Germany, and called on Germans to stop atoning for Nazi crimes, insisting they take a more “positive” view of the nation’s history.
Höcke is facing a criminal charge for ending a 2021 speech with a known Nazi slogan (“Everything for Germany”); his lawyer has said the charge is unwarranted, according to the Guardian. Many in Germany regard Höcke as a fringe figure, but he is also widely considered the party’s de facto leader. German state security service regards the party as a threat.
Yet in recent polls, AfD is now Germany’s second-most popular party, commanding the support of nearly one-quarter of respondents and leading all three parties in Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s awkward center-left governing coalition.
AfD is No. 1 in most of the territory that constitutes the former East Germany. Its strong showing across much of the country is shocking in a multiparty system where one-quarter of the national vote in past elections has been enough to lead the pack. An equal concern is that the Scholz government lacks any apparent strategy to respond.
I recently went to Thuringia to get a closer look at AfD in its strongholds. In the small town of Nordhausen, where the Nazis developed the V-2 rocket — the miracle weapon that Adolf Hitler thought would bring Britain to its knees — I met with Jörg Prophet, a local AfD figure. He lost a recent mayoral election, but still managed about 45 percent of the vote.
Prophet, 61, was raised in communist East Germany, where revisionist World War II history framed the capitalist West, not Hitler and his jackbooted legions, as the war’s real villain. The politician clings to some of that twisted history. The Allies whose bombing leveled Nordhausen, he said a few years ago, “showed as little morality” as the Nazis. That’s a staggering assertion in Thuringia, where tens of thousands of prisoners died at Buchenwald, one of the Third Reich’s earliest and biggest concentration camps.
An engineer who has built a family automotive business, Prophet was a pleasant companion for drinks — courtly manners, civil tone, earnest presentation. He sidestepped questions about Höcke and his indictment for using the Nazi slogan. Höcke is “an easy target,” Prophet said.
Yet Prophet and another AfD official who tagged along barely concealed their contempt for Germany’s large migrant community and the recent wave of asylum seekers.
They insisted the party is the only one in Germany squarely addressing the immigration problem, which they characterized in stereotypes — migrants who are violent; refuse to work; make little effort to learn the German language and customs; and live off the state’s generous social benefits.
“We are not an immigration country,” Prophet said, heedless of the roughly 8 million residents of non-European Union backgrounds. “The solution is to require migrants to work and adhere to our rules. If they don’t, then you have to say, ‘Thanks, but please go home.’”
Mass deportation is a fever dream in a country beset by a severe shortage of workers, including in blue-collar roles. The idea has bloomed in the fertile ground of the former East German states, where incomes, pensions and inherited wealth are a fraction of those in the west. In the eastern states — older, whiter and suspicious of globalization — resentment runs deep. Even three decades after reunification, none of the 40 firms in the DAX index, Germany’s equivalent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, are based there.
The Scholz government appears to have no fix, and it has floundered in trying to fashion a policy that would temper the magnetic pull that Germany’s social welfare benefits represent for asylum seekers who make it to Europe. Scholz himself — colorless, cautious, fully committed to Ukraine’s increasingly unpopular cause — looks like the wrong man at the wrong time to take on AfD. He has mostly ignored the party even as it overtook his own Social Democrats, which won Germany’s 2021 elections.
Ignoring AfD seems a losing strategy, given Germany’s lackluster leadership. “It would help to have more inspirational political leaders in the vein of Churchill or Willy Brandt,” said Minkenberg.
Yet no such towering figures are waiting in the wings, and no German politicians have found the right messaging to turn back AfD’s gains. Without that countervailing force, Europe’s already precarious future might soon look even grimmer.
Opinion | Alternative for Germany increases Europe’s far-right turn - The Washington Post
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©