TEACHERS OUSTED FROM CLASSROOMS FOR SUPPORTING IMMIGRATION LAW

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

While deporting the criminals known as illegal aliens now inspires
protests, deporting from class teachers who express support for
immigration law is often considered just — even when they express their
opinions on their own time.

First there’s Collier County, Florida, elementary school teacher
Veronica Fleming, who was reassigned to administrative duties after
posting a Facebook message opposing last Thursday’s “Day Without
Immigrants.” Then there’s an unnamed Prosser, Washington, elementary
school teacher placed on leave after using Facebook to encourage people
to boycott the event and report illegal aliens to authorities.

There are also teachers on leave in Jurupa Valley, California, for creating what have been described as “controversial social media posts.”

EAGNews.org tells us that Fleming “linked to a Chicago Tribune story about the nationwide protest and offered her take on the situation,” opining:

This inspired complaints from some parents, according to Collier County Public Schools spokesman Greg Turchetta. In the school, writes the Naples Daily News,
“96 percent of the students are minorities” — which, of course, means
they’re the majority. Does this make Fleming a persecuted minority?

Moreover, in taking pains to point out the school’s demographics, are
the mainstream media implying that illegal migration should be viewed
as a minority issue? Or, are they saying minorities have a problem
obeying the law?

And illegal migration is what’s addressed in the teacher’s
comments and the protest to which she objected; after all, legal
immigrants don’t have to worry about deportation.

This illegality was explicitly referenced in the case of the Prosser
teacher, who taught at Keene-Riverview Elementary School. The Yakima Herald reports
that she “provided information on how to contact the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Agency to ‘report illegal aliens.’”

The Herald continued, “They will need to know names,
locations (either work place or residence) and any other specific
information you can provide,’ the post said.”

“‘If this offended you in anyway [sic] do me a favor and unfriend my American a[**]!!!’ the post said.”

In a touch of unsurprising politically correct irony in the Florida
case, spokesman Turchetta distanced the school district from Fleming’s
opinion by issuing a statement which included, “This is a very
tight-knit neighborhood school that stands for inclusion.”

Apparently, though, this inclusion excludes people who believe in robustly enforcing immigration law.

In both cases, critics played the bigotry card. The Prosser School
District said that the Keene-Riverview teacher’s post “could be
considered hostile or offensive on the basis of national origin,” as the Herald relates it.

As for Fleming’s alleged trespass, some parents labeled her post “racist.” EAGNews
tells us, for instance, “‘I was mad. Really, really mad,’ said
Gabriella Marquez, whose two children are in Fleming’s class. ‘I would
consider it really to be racist.’”

It was not explained what “national origin” is indicated by the term
“illegal alien” or “immigrants”; in reality, each group comprises many
dozens of nationalities. And what “race” does “alien” denote? The human
race? Perhaps Fleming is biased in favor of Martians.

(Strike that — that’s a planetary designation. “Little green men” perhaps? Strike that, too — that’s referencing color.)

Moreover, while illegal migration is largely a Hispanic phenomenon,
“Hispanic” not only refers to people from numerous countries; it’s also
not a racial designation. It’s an ethnic one.

In the case of the teachers placed on leave in Jurupa Valley,
California, the issue is that they noted that having certain students
“play hooky” to attend the Day Without Immigrants protest had positive
effects. As the Washington Times reported,
in “now-deleted Facebook comments, at least five teachers and one
counselor from Rubidoux High School reveled in the fact that their
classes were smaller and more productive without the striking students.”

This makes sense, since youths who forgo school to attend protests
often are ne’er-do-wells who’ll seize upon any opportunity to skip
class.

The Press Enterprise tells us,
“Social science teacher Geoffrey Greer started the [social media]
thread Thursday afternoon by writing that having 50 percent fewer
students proved ‘how much better things might be without all this
overcrowding.’”

The Enterprise further informed that the “comments included
statements that students were ‘lazy’ and ‘drunk’ and that the cafeteria
was cleaner without them. Jurupa Unified School District Superintendent
Elliott Duchon said the posts don’t represent the views of
administrators and employees.” (Telling the truth is not district
policy.)

And the truth is that being a patriot today can be hazardous to
career health. In contrast, though, educators who supported the Day
Without Immigrants apparently suffered no persecution. An example is
teacher Erika Montes, 30, who participated in last Thursday’s protest, marching on the White House. She’s portrayed as just a good citizen, but one could wonder: Did she take the day off from work?

Presumably certain teachers did. In fact, Red Alert Politics tells us
that some college students “expressed delight at classes being canceled
for the day,” a whole “Spanish department shut down,” and that some
“immigrant professors canceled classes.” (Were the conscientious
students reimbursed a day’s tuition money?)

This presents a striking reality. While teacher Erika Montes said she
was at her protest “to be the voice of those who can’t speak,” it’s the
teachers opposing her position who can’t speak — at least not without
suffering persecution. In fact, teachers who skipped class to express a
pro-criminality position during school time are applauded, while those
who showed up for work and, at least in most cases, merely expressed a
pro-immigration-law position on their own time are punished.

So today, everything has been turned on its head. It wasn’t considered controversial when President Dwight Eisenhower instituted mass deportations
in the 1950s via his “Operation Wetback.” Now, a notable percentage of
our population is so radically un-American that they consider it radical
to enforce immigration law at all.

The one bit of good news is that, to an extent, anyway, the “Day
Without Immigrants” backfired. Not only did it likely alienate many
patriotic Americans, but, reports Red Alert Politics, “Some
workers were fired for ditching work to participate in the strike, while
others were laid off because their employers discovered they had been
working for them for years without legal documentation. Twitter users
expressed backlash by calling for the boycott of those employers.”

So with the protest having been somewhat of a failure, perhaps we
should try a slightly different event: a Day without Citizens. How well
would the nation function then?