LA Substitute Teacher Tells Students Their Parents Will Be Deported
A student at Bret Harte Preparatory Middle School in Los Angeles, CA, caught a substitute teacher telling Latino students their parents will be deported after Donald Trump won the election:
“If you were born here, then your parents gotta go and they gonna leave you behind. You’ll be in foster care,” according to the recording made by one of the 6th-grade students.
The audio continues:
At one point on the recording, a child asked the teacher a question.
Student: “How are they going to find me?”
Teacher: “I got your phone numbers, your address, your mama’s address, your daddy’s address. It’s all in the system, sweetie. And when they come and there’s an illegal, they gotta go!”
Students and parents filed complaints to the school district after the incident:
“I don’t know how a teacher could say that to a kid?” one student’s father asked.
“I was scared because how can a teacher tell us that. He’s just rubbing it in that Trump won. We already know that,” said one student, whose father was undocumented. “I worry about my dad because I had a nightmare that he wasn’t with me any more.”
No matter how you feel about immigration or Donald Trump, this is just wrong. You don’t tell kids at any age that.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
That may be one of the most annoying things about being President … all the clowns—both big donors and absolute nobodies—who think they’re the ones who set your agenda. Everybody seems to think they know what the President’s gotta do …
Are we sure this was a Trump supporter? Sounds a lot like the anti-Trump rhetoric coming from the snowflakes to me. “He’s going to deport everybody,” “make all abortions illegal’, “ban Muslims,” “persecute gays.” But yeah, completely out of bounds either way.
The odds of a LA teacher being a Trump supporter? Pretty low I’d say.
This could very well be the grade-school equivalent of the hand-wringing the prog press is doing right now, egging on the rioters with their hyperbole.
There might be a substitute teacher in LA who is a Trump supporter.
But if there is there is no chance in hell he is admitting it openly.
I can’t really say I mind liberals running scared and losing their minds over Trump. But you can bet there’s more to this story.
First, this is a substitute PE teacher in California of unspecified race, so draw your own conclusions there. He probably spends all day making ridiculous threats against students like “I’m going to rip you apart and stuff you in your momma’s purse”.
Second, yes, some parents do make bad choices that make their own lives and the lives of their children more difficult. Coming here illegally would be one of those choices, and committing other crimes that move them to the head of the deportation queue would be another. It’s not necessarily the PE teacher’s job to point that out, but it still should be common knowledge for anyone over the age of 11, which these sixth graders probably are.
Sounds to me like he was trying to scare the kids because they weren’t paying attention to him in class. A substitute teacher saying he has access to their addresses and phone numbers?
So tell me again, which side is spewing hate? Which side has no tolerance? Which side uses scare tactics instead of facts? Oh, and remind me of all the riots the right did when obama was elected twice?
Remember, love trumps hate.
I think we need to work on our elementary school English programs.
I think they meant to say, “Love (the) Trump-hate” which is an entirely different animal altogether.
From here on out, hopefully it will be “LAW TRUMPS LOVE.”
There’s a ~reason~ that the term is “Illegal Immigrant.”
Dear Chuck: Actually, it’s “illegal alien.”
Yeah. But you say that to a Low Information Voter and they look at you like you’re discussing ET or the Martians from “Mars Attacks.”
The key-word in both is “illegal.”
Really? A “down vote?” Is someone offended that I said “illegal?”
This is just a continuation of the blatant lie spouted by the pro-amnesty crowd that US citizen children will be separated from their illegal alien parents. In a nuclear family, the children go where the parents go, except to prison. So, one would assume that the deported parents would take their children with them when they leave. After all, these children usually have dual citizenship. Now, if they choose to leave their anchor children in this country when they go back to their own country, that is up to them and will be handled in accordance with US federal and state laws.
Well, hold on there, Mr. Expert…
The children are US citizens, and you don’t just deport those willy-nilly.
Chances are that every kid will be appointed an ad litem to determine the KID’S interests, not mommy and daddy’s interests.
Now, I don’t KNOW-KNOW this, but I do think it stands to reason and to law.
Chuck might have some insights.
Open to discussion…. this is mixing legal and illegal…. The only reason this is an issue deals with all of the benefits bestowed for just showing up across the border….. welfare… illegal voting rights… power and money to those that do not have a vested interest in the country. If one believes that the USA is a thief and subjugator..then stealing from a crook isn’t a crime. Why is it so important to NOT protect the rights of true US citizens.. OUR fellow citizens?
AlaskaBob: I mistakenly upvoted.
You don’t believe in rending families apart do you rags? Well, PRESIDENT TRUMP can end the catch and release program and deport all the wetbacks. If they want to take their U.S. citizen/anchor babies back to their native homelands, fine. If not, the babies can be adopted. Otherwise in accordance with current LAW, the parents can be sponsored by the U.S. citizen kids when they reach 18 in 10-15-18 years. What’s wrong with that? And the “dreamers” put themselves on a list and ADMITTED they were ILLEGAL. Why is that a problem. Get out. Come back when/if you are legal. That is called LEGAL IMMIGRATION. And that is why 30% of Hispanics voted FOR TRUMP!
Uh, did you bother to read my post? The US citizen children would NOT be subject to deportation. They are free to stay in the US, as is any other citizen. The problem they face is that, as minors, someone has to assume responsibility for them while they are in the US. So, if they remain, when their parents are deported, then the parents have to make arrangement for their supervision, or the state will assume that the children have been abandoned and they will be be place according to state law.
Look, this is very simple. If illegal alien parents are forcibly deported, they are free to take their children with them. Just as if the parents made a voluntary move to another country. The US government is NOT going to FORCE any parent to leave their children behind, in the USA. Got it?
Chuck might have some insights.
Depends on the nature of the proceeding. There are a couple of options regarding this:
1.) Parents make provision for their US Citizen children to remain in the United States with Family/Friends who are willing to accept legal authority to act in loco parentis over those children via a ‘Power of Attorney.’ No Court Appointed Special Advocate (a CASA or Guardian at Litem) and no Attorney ad Litem (attorney acting at the direction of the child) will be appointed, because there is no “State action” regarding the child (the child, as a US Citizen, is NOT part of the deportation proceedings).
2.) the Parents do NOT make provision for the child, and the child is considered “neglected” by the parents by the failure to make arrangements for the child’s welfare. A Department of Family and Protective Services – Child Protective Services case is opened by the State (for Texas, in other states it is the appropriate state child protection agency). The parents (now technically absent, but may be physically present at hearings if the Court is close enough to the Border and the parents are “escorted” by the DHS or Court’s Bailiff to Court) are appointed their own attorneys, the Child is appointed his/her own attorney AND is supposed to be appointed a separate CASA/GAL to advise the Court as to “best interest” of the child (the Attorney ad Litem is ethically and legally obligated to argue the child’s desired outcome as the client of the representation). The child may be placed in Foster Care, parental rights may be terminated and may be effectively forcibly adopted, or the child may “age out” of foster care (which actually has some VERY attractive benefits in Texas, depending on what the child has in mind to do: one of which is free tuition FOREVER to any Texas State University, meaning you can go and get an unlimited number of degrees FOR FREE). Sometimes there ARE reasons to go this route depending on the age of the child and how close they are to “aging out” of the system.
3.) The parents simply arrange to take the child with them when they are removed from the United States back to their country of origin. No Court proceeding initiated, unless the “return” to the home country is ITSELF unreasonably dangerous, in which case DFPS-CPS will open a Conservatorship suit (this is really, really, REALLY rare).
But children go with parents. That was the Elian Gonzalez argument.
When they turn 18, they can come back if they choose.
No. No, no no. That is a VAST oversimplification to a very, very sticky problem in the Elian Gonzalez case.
In Gonzalez, the Mother had fled Cuba with the child and had drowned at sea. Elian, was rescued AT SEA by fishermen and handed over to the Coast Guard. He therefore did not qualify for the “wet-feet, dry-feet” fast-track Cuban refugee status.
He was handed over to his Maternal relatives in the United States while INS figured out what to do with him.
In the interim, Elian’s FATHER (a Cuban national in Cuba) initiated proceedings for the return of his child via treaty. The FATHER, now having a superior right of possession in the child (under both US Law and International Treaty) as opposed to the maternal relatives demanded the child’s return to Cuba (which was blessed by the Clinton administration via Janet Reno).
INS thereafter kicked in the door, forcibly removed the child, and returned him to his father (which, incidentally, is ACTUALLY what is supposed to happen pursuant to the “Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”).
So, there’s a difference. If Elian’s father had kept his mouth shut, after 6 months, the maternal relatives could have separately petitioned for Elian to be granted “abandoned child” status, been fast-tracked through the Immigration Court as an “unaccompanied” minor now residing in the United States without a legal “parent or guardian” and he would have qualified for Lawful Permanent Resident status (and eventually citizenship).
The ~choices~ the parents make are what determines where the child resides, even if the child him/herself is a United States Citizen or Dual Citizen.
Dear Mac & Rags:
Mark Steyn wrote about it in a fabulous column, “The Party of Why Nothing Can Be Done”:
~Talking about birthright citizenship with Sean, I mentioned the case of Deena Gilbey. I wrote about her in my book The [Un]documented Mark Steyn:
Her husband Paul was a trader with EuroBrokers on the 84th floor of the World Trade Center and that Tuesday morning he stayed behind to help evacuate people. He was a hero on a day when America sorely needed them, having been thoroughly let down by those to whom the defence of the nation was officially entrusted. Mr. Gilbey was a British subject on a long-term work visa that allowed his dependents to live in America but not to work. The Gilbeys bought a house in Chatham Township and had two children, born in New Jersey and thus U.S. citizens. All perfectly legal and valid.
But then came September 11th. And a few days afterwards Mrs. Gilbey received a form letter from the Immigration and Naturalization Service informing her that, upon her husband’s death, his visa had also expired and with it her right to remain in the country. She was now, they informed her, an illegal alien and liable to be “arrested and deported.”
Think about that. On the morning of Wednesday, September 12th, some INS departmental head calls the staff into his office and says, “Wow, that was a wild ride yesterday. But the priority of the United States Government right now is to find out how many legally resident foreigners have been widowed and see how quickly we can traumatize them further.”
That’s from The [Un]documented Mark Steyn.
So, what is your point? Mr. Gilbey was the holder of a visa which allowed him to work in the US without becoming a citizen. In its profound generosity, the citizens of this fair nation allowed him to bring his dependents to this country, in this case his wife, without securing a separate visa for her. While here they had two children who were automatically US citizens. Now, in the years between his arrival and his death, Mr. Gilbey apparently made no attempt to obtain US citizenship; nor did his wife. So, under the law, his visa expired upon his death. The same thing would have happened if Mr. Gilbey had been struck and killed by a bus. So, SURPRISE, no Mr. Gilbey, no visa, no right to remain in this country for Mrs. Gilbey. Now, Mrs. Gilbey was free to take her two children and return to the UK, where we nay assume she intended to return anyway, as she had not file for citizenship in the US.
So, one more time. What is your point?
one day my daughter came home and asked: “Mom, what’s a constipated idiot?” Turns out, the play yard gossip has it, a sub called a student that and so now he can’t work anymore. It could be broken telephone, though.
It’s going to be an interesting four years, though. Lots of theatrics, but no deportations, no worries.
I have to disagree. There will definitely be deportations. It will start with those illegal aliens already in custody and those subject to deportation orders. But, as others are encountered, they will be be detained and processed. Now, for the latter group, most are entitled to an immigration hearing, which will slow things down considerably. But, the deportation train will still be running.
Merely enforcing the law for a change will be a tremendous help. It will also encourage assimilation.
Agree. There will always be deportations. There will be no mass deportations.
But there will be mass self-deportations.
And the wall?
Of course there will be “mass” deportations. By enforcing the law with regard to requiring proof of lawful residence, a significant number of illegal aliens will be unable to find work and will have to leave. Then it is simply a matter of taking illegal immigrants into custody when they are found. Now, there will always be those who overstay their visas as well as some who sneak in or are smuggled into the country. But, if they can not make a living, go to school, obtain a driver’s license, access public services and entitlements, most will simply stay home and enter this country legally.
Say, isn’t that school guilty of “cultural appropriation?” Their logo is the fleur-de-lis which is a symbol of French royalty. How dare they? Somebody stage a protest!
The French and “Creole Nation”. ( Sorry if Creole Nation is inappropriate. I couldn’t think of anything better. Let me know if there is. )
So why aren’t they in Louisiana?
No matter how you feel about immigration or Donald Trump, this is just wrong. You don’t tell kids at any age that.
Define “kids.’ Average age of a 6th grader is 11 to 12 years old.
There is a pretty muddled set of rules as to what age “kids” are old enough to make their own decisions. For instance, a minor in California over the age of 12 is capable of consenting on their own to medical treatment, and the Medical professional is largely BARRED from informing a parent/guardian without the minor’s consent (in writing in the form of a signed medical authorization form, if I remember correctly).
Are we supposed to “shield” kids from some big decisions, but give them authority to make life-altering choices in others? If so, where is the line and WHY is the line in that place. Is it merely arbitrary, or is there some logical basis for it?
This conversation about parental deportation is one that will need to occur with at least some of the “children” in the educational system. Some of them ARE US citizens, and I expect that eventually their parents will come up for deportation.
Is this the “right” person to be having it? No. The proper person to be having should be the School Counselor, most of which in the People’s Republic of California and the deep-south and far-west of Texas are going to need VERY heavy medication to get through the next 12-18 months due to all the issues that they will have with both Illegal Immigrant students and citizen students with Illegal Immigrant parents.
That being said, at least SOME of the Citizens born to Illegal Immigrants parents are going to want to make the hard choice to continue their “free” education here rather than be sent home with their parents. They can always choose to then return to where their parents were deported back to, with an eye toward (one would hope) being one of the better educated individuals in that geographic region and raising the standard of living for their extended families.
That is, unless the “child” then selfishly chooses to abandon their now-deported parents to their fate, for the parents selfishly putting the child in that position in the first place by those parents illegal acts.
Yeah. More than old enough to get the crap beat out of them by anti-Trumpers:
““These boys decided to ask the classroom, ‘Who voted for Donald Trump?’ And then I said, ‘I did.’ And then they come over here and jerked me out of my seat,” said the student. “Before I could get up they started kicking me and punching me.”
The student’s name was protected by request of his parents. But he told us the classroom did have a teacher present.”
This nonsense happens with every turnover of the White House.
My mother used to work in Patient Affairs at a military hospital. Her job was to make sure things ran smoothly, and that the patients knew their rights and got their treatment. These were mostly active duty military and dependents.
One day, she came home steaming. Somebody had denied treatment, and there had been a meeting over it. The denial, in today’s argot, was “because Clinton.” She said, “What do you mean? The only way a President can act is by executive order. He cannot have issued any executive order, because he has not yet been sworn in. For now, we use the current rules!”
That particular rule was never changed by the Clinton administration. The entire kerffluffel was made-up nonsense on the part of some sore losers.
Plenty of emotion and idiots on every side, for sure.
Yah, I’m saving that one for when Iran irradiates NYC with a dirty bomb.
“Plenty of emotion and idiots on every side, for sure.”
I like it. Makes me feel above the fray, all Solomon-like and respectable. Because I refuse to judge one side until I can say both sides are just as bad. Mmmmmm pretty.
Oh cool! I got 10 Virtue Points added to my Social Media platform! Just for thinking about this! Yay! Winning! Look at me! Look at me! See how reasonable and respectable I am? Not like “those” people over there.
And to you I offer a heaping helping of “fuck you”
The actual legal status of these children’s parents is beside the point at the moment. The teacher had no business having this conversation with these students. The business at hand is teaching. If deportation becomes an issue, it will be handled by the proper authorities at the proper time — and not by substitute (or regular) teachers.
What everyone conveniently forgets is that the children’s situation is because of choices their parents made. No one forced their parents to come to the US from their home country. As a matter of fact, many of them paid a small fortune to a coyote to smuggle them in. When e-verify kicks in and true workplace audits begin; when employers are held accountable for their hiring practices and the laws we enacted in 1986 are enforced, the parents will make a choice. They can either return to their homeland with or without their children. It’s not the government, it’s not you or I, it’s the parents who made the decision to expose their children and their families to this cold reality.
Class diversitist on the Democratic payroll. It’s telling how little they care about immigration “reform”, including mass emigration, refugee crises, etc.
Mary, an apparent Trump supporter was beaten almost to death and then drug down the road with his arm stuck in the car. Would you also call that “disgusting” ?
I’m not being unfair here. There are several stories of Trump people being beat up, and even some kid who’s mother threw him out of the house because he voted Trump. But you chose to run with this one.
Can you defend why you chose to write on this and none of the others?
The abortionists and rape-rapists, certainly, and others who seek to undermine the Constitution and disenfranchise Americans. Others may be eligible for “amnesty” without prospects of citizenship, following a convention with second and third-world nations, and our southern neighbors, to address emigration reform. Whether it is mass exodus or refugee crises, there are underlying causes that have been progressive and enabled by anti-native factions to fester.
as a native of Lost Angels who has watched the ongoing destruction of my beloved city and state since the 70’s, all i have to say is that if their parents are here illegally, they *should* be deported.
send the kids with them, so they can grow up in the vast richness of their native culture, which is obviously so much superior to our American gaucheness…
they can come back, if they want, when they are adults. just get fingerprints, retinal scans and DNA samples from them before they leave.
Vaya con Elvis!
The story does not pass the smell test!
This is just the start of non-stop negative Trump and so called Trump “supporters” stories.
We all know the press hates Trump and us his supporters!
Be prepared to be slimed everyday.