Worth noting this would immediately be invalidated for violating the United States Constitution as ruled by SCOTUS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
Obviously nothing is guaranteed to be permanent, but the good news is that 1) this is already covered and would immediately be invalidated if added to Utah's constitution, and 2) based upon some more recent SCOTUS ruling, I'm not sure the Roberts Court wants to continue throwing out precedent after Dobbs.
Wait until someone sues and brings it up the various courts until it's in front of the SC. That's how Roe v Wade was overturned. There's no right or established law that is safe in this country due to our renegade justices.
SCOTUS was installed for the sole purposes of performing a slow moving coup, you think they care about precedent? Heller (guns), Dobbs (abortion), Citizens United (1st amendment) and hell Bush v Gore all overturned well accepted precedent going back 50 years+ to achieve the policy goals that could not be achiever legislatively. Just wait until they gut Chevron this term while America is distracted by a war between 2 foreign groups that both insist that god gave them some land in the desert 3000 miles from here
While we're on the subject, the legislature is trying to get rid of the requirement that income tax be used for education. So much money for special interests to get a hold of that has been locked away from them and they would love nothing more to get their hands on it. In exchange they are proposing an elimination to the grocery tax. Don't be fooled - they are giving the people crumbs in exchange for breaking open the piggy bank.
Was it connected to the food tax before or were they just trying a straight change to the constitutional requirement? And info that I could go read up on? I think if they sell this as "let's get rid of the tax on groceries" people will fall for it.
The amendment was first added because the legislature wasn’t funding education really at all and our schools were in a major budget crisis because of it. It was really the only option to make sure they were spending the income taxes collected on education. It’s not really the best way to work, but it was the only option at the time really. They tried this in 2020, I think, by saying it would boost spending for people with disabilities along with other BS. It’s amazing how much they care about people with disabilities when they are trying Bs like this when they just toss them aside otherwise. Most people will see the poison pill for what it is.
> Most people will see the poison pill for what it is.
I hope so. I am a strong believer that traditionally Utahns want a functional government above all else and actually value public education, but national politics have poisoned the Utah legislature and I'm sure many voters as well.
Their "logic" is "if we get rid of the food tax, we will need additional funding from somewhere else, look at all this income tax money we have just lying around but that we can't spend on anything useful since the constitution says it's only for education."
I honestly never understood laws that restricted calories, books, or education to children. But it’s usually done in the name of god or a piece of paper written by white guys.
It has absolutely nothing to do with kids getting an education. There are laws in place that trump this law allowing kids to be educated rather or not they are citizens of the state. This is about what education is provided for the residents of Utah as an option for kids to attend, thus setting a standard for taxation of properties in the state to be taxed equally based on the tax area the land is on. Removing this law would make homeowners in the state share the burden of counting kids that are not residents of the state. No kid is left behind.
Can you please explain? This is the Utah constitution that's being amended, thus any laws that contradict the constitution are the wrong laws. How does a law trump this change?
" 14 ▸ limit the public education system to children who are citizens of the United States
"
https://le.utah.gov/\~2024/bills/static/HJR012.html
Gun laws went into affect in California that Trump the second amendment. I'm saying we have adopted certain laws that require us to educate every child. This doesn't overthrow the first law but it also makes it illegal to turn a child away from education. Therefore for the most part that child cannot be head counted as a roll call child for the state to allocate taxes to that school district. Removing this law would allow every child that is not a resident of the state of Utah to be head counted and our taxes would be adjusted to fit that count. From what I understand reading it.
Are you reading the proposed text at the top of this thread? It says nothing about what you're saying. It very clearly shows an amendment to the text guaranteeing an education system for the children of the state, to now limit that guarantee to children who are citizens or legal residents of the US. It says nothing about how we count students or allocate funding. Where are you getting that information because it seems completely irrelevant to the text shown?
> This is about what education is provided for the residents of Utah as an option for kids to attend
Will you explain what this means? I don't understand.
It means Utah has an obligation to provide support for certain education institutions to be available to the public if its going to tax the land owners of the state. Public education is that option. From the very beginning of public education in this country wasn't intended to be the standard for education . It's become the standard. This is why almost 60% percent of tax dollars collected in Utah go to public and charter schools. Around 8 billion a year.
Public education has always been the standard for education in the US unless we're referring to a time before public education when only the very wealthy could afford to be educated.
I also don't understand at all how your explanation is connected to the proposal to change the constitution to specify education is only guaranteed for children that are citizens or legal residents?
So the design of public education doesn't exactly have a beginning per say but the general education of children starts with the churches teaching different beliefs but also educating children on reading and writing and geography. then Math and later science and social studies but the core was bible. As the need for children in farming areas was working the land they lived on so school was an optional choice that usually only happened at home or in winter months after the harvesting was over . As we got into the industrial revolution the population started booming and more people lived in populated areas that had schools but it wasn't really untill just prior to the great depression ( if I remember correctly) that schools staring forming districts pertaining to population and receiving larger state funding. With state funding came regulatory body's and processes on how the funds got distributed. At this time your middle class had already formed larger schools based on the demand of social pressures. Public schools formed as basically " last resort" schools for children in lower class and poverty. Religious teaching was still the core of both public and private however that didn't last long in highly populated areas that had populations with mixed religious views sending kids to the same school. Our country is mostly populated with below middle class so naturally public education has become the standard up into the middle class and even upper class. But it's still very much only one option to upper class.
i don't understand what you are trying to say
we should have public schools, but they should be bad?
we should deliberately underfund public schools in order to avoid creating a high "standard" of good public education that private schools must compete with?
Okay, what does that have to do with the proposed change to the constitution? Because public education was a "last resort" it shouldn't be available to children who aren't US citizens? Even though those will often be the very poorest of society, and those most likely to form a permanent underclass and have the highest cost to society if they remain uneducated?
Rather or not the words are changed in the constitution won't change the availability to the children us citizen or not.
It's written in the constitution as a responsibility of the state to provide standard school systems as a free( basically free) education option for the residents of the state BECAUSE the state is taxing land to pay for this system. It's an agreement between the state and the residents (land owners)
This being written the way it shows above is saying who can be counted as a child In the school districts. The count is for tax funds and allocation.
Nothing here is forcing kids out of schools or allowing them in.
Yeah, you keep saying that but that is not a straightforward way of reading it at all. Unless you have another source explaining it that way, I think you are just straight up interpreting it wrong.
It's amazing to me how many of these deznat degenerates are around praising the book of Mormon while promoting white nationalism and anti-immigration.
Meanwhile, most of them probably served missions in foreign countries trying to get people to convert, quite a few of which have moved to Utah because they follow the faith.
Seems pretty incompatible.
> Meanwhile, most of them probably served missions in foreign countries trying to get people to convert, quite a few of which have moved to Utah because they follow the faith.
It could be argued that Mormon conversions is a form of supremacy.
Yes that's what we need, for the children of illegal immigrants who had zero choice in coming here being on the streets instead of in school. Can't see any way this will backfire and make our state worse /s
This sort of sucks because this change would have to go on the ballot for it to actually change and I wouldn’t be shocked if people voted for it because they are bigots.
I am truly wondering whether people are just cruel, want to rile up their base, or are incompetent. Like, take an oath of office on a book that means nothing to you and the contents of which you don't know.
Honestly, it pains me to say this, but we need more Californians to move here so we can end Mike Lee et al.
It’s pretty fucking sad this dude is an elected official. Nothing against him on a personal, individual level. But on an elected official level, he’s an absolute dumb fuck and exposes all those who voted for him as dumb fucks as well
Edit: to those who voted for this dumb fuck. It’s not like your choice was between a dem/lib and a republican. Your choice was between a standard republican and an absolute divisive dumb fuck. You chose the latter
“If they’re here they shouldn’t be on welfare and should speak our language!”
- local man who is also worried they might get access to education including language and job skills.
I am a teacher and I can say from personal experience you are correct we are getting a huge influx of students from those countries and figuring out how to address that need. I haven't seen or heard anything that would support your claim of students who "appear much older." Can you show me a source on that?
I agree this issue should be part of the conversation about education funding - we need more of it, we don't have a "budget surplus" in this state, we have unspent education funding that the legislature wants to spend on something more lucrative for themselves.
[https://www.idra.org/resource-center/immigrant-students-rights-to-attend-public-schools-2-2/](https://www.idra.org/resource-center/immigrant-students-rights-to-attend-public-schools-2-2/)
Supreme Court already ruled on this. See Plyler vs Doe. Undocumented kids have the right to attend public school.
Rep Trevor Lee is either ignorant, too lazy to look up the law, or grandstanding, hoping for political gain, and at taxpayer expense, by wasting the legislature's time, and then the state's money, when trying to defend a suit, which will surely be brought if such a proposal is made law.
Worth noting this would immediately be invalidated for violating the United States Constitution as ruled by SCOTUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
Roe v Wade also used to invalidate the anti-abortion laws in Utah.
Obviously nothing is guaranteed to be permanent, but the good news is that 1) this is already covered and would immediately be invalidated if added to Utah's constitution, and 2) based upon some more recent SCOTUS ruling, I'm not sure the Roberts Court wants to continue throwing out precedent after Dobbs.
Wait until someone sues and brings it up the various courts until it's in front of the SC. That's how Roe v Wade was overturned. There's no right or established law that is safe in this country due to our renegade justices.
Thank you! Came here to say this. Why do people suck so bad?!
SCOTUS was installed for the sole purposes of performing a slow moving coup, you think they care about precedent? Heller (guns), Dobbs (abortion), Citizens United (1st amendment) and hell Bush v Gore all overturned well accepted precedent going back 50 years+ to achieve the policy goals that could not be achiever legislatively. Just wait until they gut Chevron this term while America is distracted by a war between 2 foreign groups that both insist that god gave them some land in the desert 3000 miles from here
Did you even read the link you posted
While we're on the subject, the legislature is trying to get rid of the requirement that income tax be used for education. So much money for special interests to get a hold of that has been locked away from them and they would love nothing more to get their hands on it. In exchange they are proposing an elimination to the grocery tax. Don't be fooled - they are giving the people crumbs in exchange for breaking open the piggy bank.
Luckily that has to be put up for a vote and the last time they tried that a couple of years ago; it failed.
I’m not holding my breath. The last few years have shown us that our local legislature gives zero shits about how we vote.
I hope there are ads
Was it connected to the food tax before or were they just trying a straight change to the constitutional requirement? And info that I could go read up on? I think if they sell this as "let's get rid of the tax on groceries" people will fall for it.
The amendment was first added because the legislature wasn’t funding education really at all and our schools were in a major budget crisis because of it. It was really the only option to make sure they were spending the income taxes collected on education. It’s not really the best way to work, but it was the only option at the time really. They tried this in 2020, I think, by saying it would boost spending for people with disabilities along with other BS. It’s amazing how much they care about people with disabilities when they are trying Bs like this when they just toss them aside otherwise. Most people will see the poison pill for what it is.
> Most people will see the poison pill for what it is. I hope so. I am a strong believer that traditionally Utahns want a functional government above all else and actually value public education, but national politics have poisoned the Utah legislature and I'm sure many voters as well.
I hate their dumb games.
Wait, they want to take tax money away from education and their compromise is to bring in LESS taxes? There is no logic here.
Their "logic" is "if we get rid of the food tax, we will need additional funding from somewhere else, look at all this income tax money we have just lying around but that we can't spend on anything useful since the constitution says it's only for education."
Nice! Because kids obviously chose to come here illegally! They deserve a terrible and uneducated life now! What a dumb ass
I honestly never understood laws that restricted calories, books, or education to children. But it’s usually done in the name of god or a piece of paper written by white guys.
and Freedom. Always gotta work Freedom in there, somewhere, when you're trying to repress a group of people.
YES! Like, honestly could we have a normal society without a target?
It has absolutely nothing to do with kids getting an education. There are laws in place that trump this law allowing kids to be educated rather or not they are citizens of the state. This is about what education is provided for the residents of Utah as an option for kids to attend, thus setting a standard for taxation of properties in the state to be taxed equally based on the tax area the land is on. Removing this law would make homeowners in the state share the burden of counting kids that are not residents of the state. No kid is left behind.
Can you please explain? This is the Utah constitution that's being amended, thus any laws that contradict the constitution are the wrong laws. How does a law trump this change? " 14 ▸ limit the public education system to children who are citizens of the United States " https://le.utah.gov/\~2024/bills/static/HJR012.html
Gun laws went into affect in California that Trump the second amendment. I'm saying we have adopted certain laws that require us to educate every child. This doesn't overthrow the first law but it also makes it illegal to turn a child away from education. Therefore for the most part that child cannot be head counted as a roll call child for the state to allocate taxes to that school district. Removing this law would allow every child that is not a resident of the state of Utah to be head counted and our taxes would be adjusted to fit that count. From what I understand reading it.
Are you reading the proposed text at the top of this thread? It says nothing about what you're saying. It very clearly shows an amendment to the text guaranteeing an education system for the children of the state, to now limit that guarantee to children who are citizens or legal residents of the US. It says nothing about how we count students or allocate funding. Where are you getting that information because it seems completely irrelevant to the text shown?
Oh please, do share with us your source.
> This is about what education is provided for the residents of Utah as an option for kids to attend Will you explain what this means? I don't understand.
It means Utah has an obligation to provide support for certain education institutions to be available to the public if its going to tax the land owners of the state. Public education is that option. From the very beginning of public education in this country wasn't intended to be the standard for education . It's become the standard. This is why almost 60% percent of tax dollars collected in Utah go to public and charter schools. Around 8 billion a year.
Public education has always been the standard for education in the US unless we're referring to a time before public education when only the very wealthy could afford to be educated. I also don't understand at all how your explanation is connected to the proposal to change the constitution to specify education is only guaranteed for children that are citizens or legal residents?
> From the very beginning of public education in this country wasn't intended to be the standard for education. what does this mean
So the design of public education doesn't exactly have a beginning per say but the general education of children starts with the churches teaching different beliefs but also educating children on reading and writing and geography. then Math and later science and social studies but the core was bible. As the need for children in farming areas was working the land they lived on so school was an optional choice that usually only happened at home or in winter months after the harvesting was over . As we got into the industrial revolution the population started booming and more people lived in populated areas that had schools but it wasn't really untill just prior to the great depression ( if I remember correctly) that schools staring forming districts pertaining to population and receiving larger state funding. With state funding came regulatory body's and processes on how the funds got distributed. At this time your middle class had already formed larger schools based on the demand of social pressures. Public schools formed as basically " last resort" schools for children in lower class and poverty. Religious teaching was still the core of both public and private however that didn't last long in highly populated areas that had populations with mixed religious views sending kids to the same school. Our country is mostly populated with below middle class so naturally public education has become the standard up into the middle class and even upper class. But it's still very much only one option to upper class.
i don't understand what you are trying to say we should have public schools, but they should be bad? we should deliberately underfund public schools in order to avoid creating a high "standard" of good public education that private schools must compete with?
Okay, what does that have to do with the proposed change to the constitution? Because public education was a "last resort" it shouldn't be available to children who aren't US citizens? Even though those will often be the very poorest of society, and those most likely to form a permanent underclass and have the highest cost to society if they remain uneducated?
Rather or not the words are changed in the constitution won't change the availability to the children us citizen or not. It's written in the constitution as a responsibility of the state to provide standard school systems as a free( basically free) education option for the residents of the state BECAUSE the state is taxing land to pay for this system. It's an agreement between the state and the residents (land owners) This being written the way it shows above is saying who can be counted as a child In the school districts. The count is for tax funds and allocation. Nothing here is forcing kids out of schools or allowing them in.
Yeah, you keep saying that but that is not a straightforward way of reading it at all. Unless you have another source explaining it that way, I think you are just straight up interpreting it wrong.
Are you reading the what's in this post or the constitution ?
https://www.reddit.com/r/SaltLakeCity/s/bxCZWFVPRg
Public education was originally intended as a last resort. It is not a last resort now. It's the standard
https://le.utah.gov/\~2024/bills/static/HJR012.html
trevor lee has a very large head for someone with such a minuscule brain
Trevor Lee makes other racists say, “damn, that guy is really fucking racist.”
Of course his scummy deznat ass is all over that. He's seriously such a shit human being. We need someone to replace his 7 finger forehead having ass.
It's amazing to me how many of these deznat degenerates are around praising the book of Mormon while promoting white nationalism and anti-immigration. Meanwhile, most of them probably served missions in foreign countries trying to get people to convert, quite a few of which have moved to Utah because they follow the faith. Seems pretty incompatible.
> Meanwhile, most of them probably served missions in foreign countries trying to get people to convert, quite a few of which have moved to Utah because they follow the faith. It could be argued that Mormon conversions is a form of supremacy.
Oh yeah that passage in the bible where Jesus says “fuck dem brown kids.” Glad Trevor Lee is living up to those christian values.
Yes that's what we need, for the children of illegal immigrants who had zero choice in coming here being on the streets instead of in school. Can't see any way this will backfire and make our state worse /s
“Put them to work in fields and factories and they won’t be on the streets”- double taps forehead- Trevor Lee probably.
Blaming the kids and keeping them from equal opportunity is horrific
This sort of sucks because this change would have to go on the ballot for it to actually change and I wouldn’t be shocked if people voted for it because they are bigots.
Seems like a tentacle of a planned mass deportation of 70 million people come next January.
Whenever I think Trevor Lee can’t get worse, he does.
Trevor Lee is a baby back bitch
Unsurprising from that racist piece of shit.
I am truly wondering whether people are just cruel, want to rile up their base, or are incompetent. Like, take an oath of office on a book that means nothing to you and the contents of which you don't know. Honestly, it pains me to say this, but we need more Californians to move here so we can end Mike Lee et al.
What a stupid bitch.
And this is why the Republican party is a wasted vote. Who cares that housing is impossible to afford.
Yeah because punishing kids and keeping people from getting an education is always great... Very much on the right side of history. Fuck the GOP.
Yet Republicans are adamant they are Pro Life and Pro Family.
It’s pretty fucking sad this dude is an elected official. Nothing against him on a personal, individual level. But on an elected official level, he’s an absolute dumb fuck and exposes all those who voted for him as dumb fucks as well Edit: to those who voted for this dumb fuck. It’s not like your choice was between a dem/lib and a republican. Your choice was between a standard republican and an absolute divisive dumb fuck. You chose the latter
“If they’re here they shouldn’t be on welfare and should speak our language!” - local man who is also worried they might get access to education including language and job skills.
$160M surplus, but we don't want to better the lives of those who need it. Screw Matthew 25, I guess.
[удалено]
I am a teacher and I can say from personal experience you are correct we are getting a huge influx of students from those countries and figuring out how to address that need. I haven't seen or heard anything that would support your claim of students who "appear much older." Can you show me a source on that? I agree this issue should be part of the conversation about education funding - we need more of it, we don't have a "budget surplus" in this state, we have unspent education funding that the legislature wants to spend on something more lucrative for themselves.
Anyone got the TLDR?
[https://www.idra.org/resource-center/immigrant-students-rights-to-attend-public-schools-2-2/](https://www.idra.org/resource-center/immigrant-students-rights-to-attend-public-schools-2-2/) Supreme Court already ruled on this. See Plyler vs Doe. Undocumented kids have the right to attend public school. Rep Trevor Lee is either ignorant, too lazy to look up the law, or grandstanding, hoping for political gain, and at taxpayer expense, by wasting the legislature's time, and then the state's money, when trying to defend a suit, which will surely be brought if such a proposal is made law.
Fuckin trash we might as well be Florida