Despite the clearly expressed wishes of Arizona voters that public schools teach in English only, state lawmakers are working to undo those requirements so taxpayers will have to fund bilingual education for foreigners. Experts warned of devastation for non-native English speakers.
In 2000, voters in the state elected to enshrine English only in their government-school system through Proposition 203. Non-native English speakers were offered English immersion to bring them up to speed in the language as quickly as possible.
But now, lawmakers have passed HCR2005 and SCR2010 to repeal those measures. Instead, tax-funded government schools would establish “dual-language immersion programs” for non-native English speakers, allowing them to take classes in their native languages, too.
Immigrants, especially, expressed outrage over the plot. AZ Rapid Response Team Founder Jose Borrajero, who immigrated legally from Cuba, expressed shock and bewilderment that lawmakers would seek to introduce bi-lingual teaching in American government schools.
“It is hard for me to understand why anyone would promote teaching public-school students who are English learners using the bi-lingual method,” Borrajero said, suggesting there may be a “sinister agenda in mind” among proponents of the scheme.
In fact, his own experience as an immigrant “strongly supports” the notion that total immersion in English is necessary for foreign-born students to succeed in America. Without having been forced to study in English — and English only — Borrajero suggested his life may have been very different.
“The most important hurdle for a learner of English, or any other foreign language, is learning to think in that language,” he said, noting that being totally immersed in the language is what makes that possible. “It is absolutely, positively impossible to do that using bilingual education.”
In any case, most experts also agree that the best way to learn a foreign language in a foreign land is by total immersion in that language, he said. Failing to provide this to foreign-born, non-native speaking students will “condemn them to a lifetime of menial, low-paying jobs,” Borrajero added.
English language immersion experts are also speaking out. English teacher Johanna Haver, who taught for two decades and wrote three books on education, blasted lawmakers seeking to erase the only protection available to Arizona’s Hispanic English learners to be able to learn America’s language.
“Let’s not behave stupidly,” warned Haver, who published the book Vindicated: Closing the Hispanic Achievement Gap through English Immersion in 2018 on this very subject. She also noted that federal schemes initiated under Obama were at work behind the scenes, at the expense of students.
Former Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas also blasted the effort in comments to The Newman Report. “Their ‘good intentions’ (and we all know what road THOSE pave) will relegate these non-English speaking students to second-class citizen status,” she warned.
Douglas, who now serves on the Advisory Board of Public School Exit urging parents to get their children out of government schools, warned of systemic problems, too. “If English Immersion is a failure it is only due to a system that can’t teach English Language Arts to native English speakers; never mind teaching English to non-English speaking students,” she said.
The bill to end the English immersion mandate passed the Arizona Senate overwhelmingly, with just 7 out of 16 Republicans voting against it. The only “no” vote in the House came from Representative Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) – an immigrant who learned English through immersion. If it is not stopped in either chamber on the next vote, voters will have one opportunity to stop the scheme before it takes effect.
The powerful forces behind the scenes supporting this effort do not have the well-being of foreign-born children in Arizona in mind. Instead, they have a subversive agenda to create a divided America where people do not share the same history, culture, love of liberty, or even the same language. The agenda to divide and conquer America must be stopped.
The Arizona House is now considering whether petition signatures should be rendered void if the signer didn’t listen to or read the description. The Senate passed SB1531 on Monday in a tight, party-line vote of 16-14. State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) introduced the bill, with State Senator Vince Leach (R-Tucson) as the co-sponsor.
Petition descriptions can measure up to 100 words, per the law. If passed by the House, petition circulators would have to either offer to read the petition aloud to each potential signer, or allow the potential signer “sufficient time” to read the description. To further ensure that the potential signer is aware of this requirement, the petition itself must state that the description must be either heard or read. The circulator must also make the person signing aware of that requirement. Circulators would also be required to ask the individuals to confirm that they heard or read the description, as well as that they understood the description before signing.
In the event that an individual doesn’t hear or read the description, then the circulator would be required to void that signature. The Secretary of State would review the submitted petition and remove all voided signatures from it.
Although the bill didn’t mention any repercussions or further checks in place that would apply to circulators who don’t follow it, current law does require that circulators sign an affidavit swearing to the validity of the petition signatures.
One failed amendment by State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) would have extended the reach of the proposed bill to include petitions for nominating candidates.
During the Senate Government hearing, Mesnard explained that this bill is necessary because petitioners will lie to signers about what their petition constitutes. He described the “common practice” of circulators employing a sort of bait-and-switch tactic, pressuring an individual to sign a petition they may not fully be in agreement with. Mesnard called the method a “drive-by signature gathering.”
“They only know what the petition gatherer tells them. So what this is saying is that they’ve got to tell them what’s in it, like, read the summary not, you know, give their own spin on the thing,” explained Mesnard.
Arizona already requires that petition circulators disclose whether they are paid or not. However, there aren’t laws preventing circulators from unintentionally or intentionally misleading potential signers on what a petition actually constitutes.
Opposition to the bill argued that it created unnecessary hurdles for citizens to engage in the legislative process.
During the final vote, State Senator Jamescita Pehlakai (D-Window Rock) stated that this bill would pose obstacles to democracy. She cited the hardships imposed to get petitions to citizens in districts such as hers, which would take a significant amount of time to travel. Pehlakai added that non-English speakers might have issues with understanding, reading, or listening to the description.
“This is one of those bills that I guess in seeking to have folks be informed of what they’re signing actually does the exact opposite,” stated Pehlakai. “A lot of the people are really informed, so when they see me with my table and my canopy. They might already know the issues and want to sign. This would take so much more time depending on what needs to be read to them[.]”
State Senator Kirsten Engel (D-Tucson) suggested that reading or hearing the description wasn’t necessary for a voter’s understanding. She stated that this bill would come across as lecturing the voters and “treating them like two-year-olds.”
“I find that very paternalistic. It’s not up to us to decide when a voter has sufficient information about something, and it’s certainly not up to us to deputize the circulator to make that determination,” stated Engel.
Steele alluded that this bill to require more information be presented readily to potential petition signers imposed limitations on individuals’ ability to vote.
“So, this morning I heard the words of President Joe Biden. And, they’re so beautiful and so simple, and usually some of the wisest things we hear come in a very simplistic phrase,” stated Victoria Steele (D-Tucson). “‘If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let more people vote.’”
The House is now considering the bill. It was assigned to committee on Wednesday.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
PHOENIX – A group of Arizona legislators penned a letter to Governor Doug Ducey urging him to make people in the Arizona Long Term Care System a priority when it comes to to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
In the letter, the group of lawmakers came together in bipartisan fashion to praise Ducey and his team for their “demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process.”
Dear Governor Ducey,
We want to start by thanking you for your leadership in getting the COVID-19 vaccine in the arms of Arizonans. While it has not been perfect, your team has demonstrated a willingness to learn and adapt during the vaccine distribution process to ensure Arizonans are vaccinated as quickly as possible. In fact, news reports recently stated that Arizona’s vaccine distribution grade went from a “C” last month to an “A” this month according to a report card by Harvard researchers. Under your leadership and in conjunction with our county partners, 1,442,915 Arizonans have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 828,315 Arizonans have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19.
Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that a recent change to the vaccine prioritization has resulted in further delaying one of the most vulnerable populations from receiving the vaccine. Now that the prioritization approach determines eligibility based on age or essential worker status, those who are part of the Arizona Long Term Care System (ALTCS) that reside at home who may not be eligible based on their age are forced to the end of the line. Considering these individuals are at a higher risk of contracting and getting sick from COVID-19, we respectfully ask you to consider strategies to get these individuals vaccinated as quickly as possible so they can resume their lives and reinstate social connectedness without fear of contracting the virus. These people, as we feel you understand have a high need for person to person contact as in one of your executive orders maintained that public school districts had to maintain an onsite educational opportunity for these individuals during the pandemic.
We understand there have been many challenges throughout this public health emergency, and yet you have demonstrated compassion for the most vulnerable. We also understand this issue is likely an oversight that can be easily addressed. This group of individuals were scheduled for 1C in vaccinations and right before there opportunity the change in eligibility by age moved them to the bottom. We ask you to please consider our request to address this and let us know how we can be of any assistance in doing so.
Respectfully,
Representative David Cook, Legislative District 8
Representative Brenda Barton, Legislative District 6
Representative Kevin Payne, Legislative District 21
Representative Mark Finchem, Legislative District 11
Representative Joel John, Representative, District 4
Representative Beverly Pingerelli, Legislative District 21
Representative Cesar Chavez, Legislative District 29
Representative Domingo DeGrazia, Legislative District 10
Representative Jennifer Longdon, Legislative District 24
Representative Quang Nguyen, Legislative District 1
Representative Justin Wilmeth, Legislative District 15
Representative Amish Shah, Legislative District 24
Representative Diego Rodriguez, Legislative District 27
A top official with the National Border Patrol Council said Tuesday that while agents prepare for an influx of immigrants from as far away as Valenzuela they are seeing an uptick of unaccompanied juveniles illegally crossing into the United States.
That is the priority, according to Art Del Cueto, and arguing about whether to call the situation a “crisis” is a waste of time and effort, he told KFYI’s James T. Harris.
Del Cueto grew up in Douglas and has been a U.S. Border Patrol Agent for nearly 20 years in Arizona. He serves as NBPC’s vice president and is host of The Green Line, a podcast available through iHeartRadio.
According to Del Cueto, the public’s attention should not be fixated on whether or not the growing number of illegal crossers at the U.S. / Mexico border should be defined as a crisis. Getting too focused on what word to use simply detracts people from doing something about what is actually happening,
“There’s too many individuals -politicians- that are going back and forth which each other arguing whether it’s a crisis or not,” Del Cueto said. “And I think that effort is better spent trying to figure [how] to stop the problem we have at hand.”
NBPC represents nearly 18,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents across the country. Del Cueto acknowledged that a change of policies following a change in president is to be expected. However, he said “the problem is you can’t remove policies that work and replace them with no policies whatsoever.”
That means everyone needs to stop worrying about whether there is a crisis occurring. Instead, people need to engage in action, Del Cueto believes.
“I think people need to work together and understand… let’s figure out what needs to be done, let’s figure out from past policies what works,” he said. “Let’s think of what we need to do to make sure that our Nation’s borders are secured because it doesn’t affect just one side of the aisle.”
Del Cueto reminded Harris that there have been other past surges of undocumented immigrants which also concerned people at that time.
“But now, whether they want to use the word crisis or they don’t want to use the word crisis I don’t think it matters,” he explained. “At the end of the day there is a huge surge of individuals that are coming into the state.”
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has amended its February 3rd lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its immigration policy that halts nearly all deportations for 100 days, even for those charged with or convicted of crimes.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has also joined the Arizona lawsuit on behalf of the State of Montana. Arizona and Montana also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to stop the DHS policies from being implemented.
The original complaint challenged the DHS Memorandum issued on the first day of the Biden Administration, called the “immediate 100-day Pause on Removals.” In addition to the DHS policy, Arizona and Montana are also now challenging the “Interim Guidance” issued by the Acting Director of ICE on February 18, 2021, which tries to supersede the original Memorandum but does not substantively change the policy to pause nearly all deportations of those who entered the country before November 1, 2020.
The amended complaint alleges that the original Memorandum and the Interim Guidance were promulgated without providing notice to Arizona and Montana, in violation of each State’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. Additionally, both policies are in direct violation of federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, that requires an alien, who has received a final deportation order, to be removed from the United States within 90 days.
The DHS Memorandum states it is to be in effect for 100 days, and the Interim Guidance states it is to be in effect for 90 days, but no apparent limiting factor is explained. If this action is permitted to stand, DHS could implement these polices for a longer period or even indefinitely, thus allowing the current Administration to unilaterally amend immigration laws without the required congressional action.
Law enforcement officials also are telling the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) that DHS is releasing undocumented aliens without testing them for COVID-19. Many are worried hospitals and medical centers, which have been operating at or near full-capacity due to the pandemic, could be overwhelmed. Possibly even more disturbing, the AGO has learned DHS is releasing potentially dangerous individuals without any coordination with local law enforcement.
The preliminary injunction notes that DHS did not engage in any prior consultation with anyone—inside or outside the federal government—about the anticipated effects and costs of the Removal Moratorium, including the number of aliens with final removal orders who will be released from ICE custody and the detrimental impacts on public safety, health, and state and local finances from such releases. Further, DHS made no attempt to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures in issuing the Memorandum/Removal Moratorium.
The motion includes declarations from Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Cochise County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Staff Mark Napier, President for the Yuma Medical Center Dr. Robert Trenschel, and Administrator of the Division of Criminal Investigation at the Montana Department of Justice Bryan Lockerby. These declarations illustrate the harms Arizona and Montana will suffer under the new DHS policies, including unreimbursed costs related to incarceration and healthcare costs.
