SHOW UP! Tell County Commission To Hold ICE Accountable.
We will be making our presence known at the County Commission meeting on Thursday the 29th.
ICE is already increasing its presence here in Knoxville, and we want our County Commission to know that we will NOT tolerate in Knoxville what we are currently seeing in Minnesota.
Not in our scrappy, scruffy, welcoming little city.
The agenda item for expanding the 287g program in Knox County has been moved to February, but on January 29th, Commissioner Andy Fox is scheduled to give a speech on ‘A Christian’s Biblical View Of Illegal Immigration’.
Please encourage anyone you know who is willing SHOW UP in support of our immigrant neighbors OR to offer a rebuttal to join us.
Request to speak during public forum of the meeting here:
https://commission.knoxcountytn.gov/public-forums/
Contact information for all Knox County Commissioners (we need EVERYONE to please contact them before the meeting and contact ALL of them, not just your rep):
https://commission.knoxcountytn.gov/people/
The largest ‘sign’ we can bring is standard 8.5 x 11 paper, and no sticks or handles. But bring colorful and highly viewable shows of support! Let the County Commission know Knoxville LOVES THEIR IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORS and we demand our elected officials do the right and decent thing.
When:
January 29th at 5:00pm
Where:
City County Building
Main Assembly Room
400 Main Street
Knoxville, TN 37902
ARGUMENT NOTES!
(Thank you Isaac Goodson.)
On the Proposed resolution
Section by section
1. SECTION 1. Clarification of Proposed State Law.
a. Text:
i. The Knox County Commission recognizes that the proposed state law employs permissive language granting local discretion and does not impose mandatory requirements on local education agencies
b. Objection:
i. The Fact of local control in the law is not disputed and is understood
1. .
ii.
2. SECTION 2. Local Control.
a. Text:
i. The Commission affirms that decisions contemplated by proposed state law remain within the discretion of local governing bodies and education agencies
b. Objections:
i. Disagreement on Prescription
3. SECTION 3. Response to Legislative Priority #6.
a. Text:
i. The Commission rejects characterizations in Legislative Priority #6 suggesting compulsory monitoring or exclusion, as such characterizations are inconsistent with the text of proposed state law.
b. Objections
i. Local opposition to the bill is based on whether a state or a county chooses to enforce the bill, either entity makes the area “compulsory” to the affected populations regardless of the authority in charge.
ii. The opposition objects for a mixture of the following reasons
1. Costs:
a. That the administrative costs of implementation in addition to the opportunity costs on staff time, and in the opportunity costs in the investment in our students would out weigh the benefits
b. The long term reinforcement of class stratification based on ethnicity like that in red lining and segregation is a stain on our reputation
2. Ethics:
a. There are more humane means to address the immigration problem than are currently being proposed or implemented like
i. Building out the number of immigration courts and judges available to hear immigration cases.
ii. It used to be policy to try to improve the communities of other countries where immigrants came from so that there would be less need for immigration in the first place.
iii.
b. Children who are undocumented are still children
i. deserve the same rights and opportunities while they are here,
ii. They probably had no say in being here
iii. Being under threat of deportation is trauma unto itself.
iv. Giving these children a better education than they would in their country of origin benefits their community whether they stay here or not
3. Constitutional Integrity
a. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue
b. The Definition of who is deportable, and thus effectively illegal regardless of available paperwork has been disregarded by the current federal administration. It is unclear if legal immigration even has any meaning or even if citizenship while not white without papers as the practice of racial profiling is now allowed and the words of the administration reflect a desire for everyone to require carrying around their documents, including citizens, at all times.
i. It is ironic that it is republicans and libertarians pushing for these kinds of changes.
c. The current administration has ignored rights of citizens and aliens in the following articles and amendments to the constitution
i. Habeas Corpus Article I:9
ii. Due Process 5th and 14th
iii. Right to legal counsel 6th
iv. Cruel and Unusual Punishments 8th
v. Birth Right Citizenship 14th
vi. (Without addressing the recent mishandling of 2nd amendment rights)
4. The Methods of ICE and DHS who are enforcing immigration policy have not done so with the proper understanding of the legal process, opting to maximize quantity over quality which makes enforcement of state immigration policy harder to
a. Proper Training and vetting for Relevant Professional Law Enforcement
i. It is also clear that the enforcement arm of the current administration has not taken the time or interest in properly training their new recruits. Preferring to empower antagonistic, unqualified and unprofessional individuals
ii. This comes with the Silcon valley tactic of “Move fast break things” we have not taken the proper time to evaluate the character or background of the individuals in question which puts themselves and the public at risk
4. SECTION 4. Legislative Position.
a. Text
i. The Knox County Commission urges the Tennessee General Assembly to support proposals allowing school districts to collect or monitor student immigration status, as such authority may reduce financial liabilities and risks borne by local governments, lower long-term administrative costs, and minimize operational distractions from teaching and learning. The Commission further affirms the State of Tennessee’s compelling interest in protecting public education for the children of citizens of Tennessee.
b. Objection
i. Note that there is no mention of optional here
ii. Disagreement on Judgement
1. We disagree that we ought to at this time pursue further immigration crackdowns on children
a. The Overton window on deportations has moved so much in the last year for the sake of deportation numbers to match the perceived “Flood” of immigrants that the legal process has been ignored.
b. The rhetoric started as “the worst of the worst” but it soon became clear in story after story that the goal was not “just” removal of truly dangerous individuals, because the administration did not stop long enough to honor their obligations to the rights of Habeas Corpus, and Due Process in addition to birthright citizenship as protected in the constitution and repeatedly affirmed by the supreme court.
c. The brutality and arbitrary “judge, jury and execution” tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Dept of Homeland Security has demonstrated that the goal of saving taxpayer dollars will be baptized in cruelty and blood
d. Further crackdowns are unconscionable until we find a solution that honors the constitutional rights and dignity of citizens and immigrants
iii. Disagreement on the Costs
1. We disagree on the costs in administrative differentiation between districts will yield benefits that can be obtained by other means (Editor please check)
2. Knowing that the student population of 60,500 has a similar distribution of immigrants (4.71%) and with a 2025 budget of 680Million in the same year, that the state provides 40% of this budget and with a county population of 507k with 446k taxpayers. The $/student amount is $11300
3. Also assuming that due to the presence of legal immigrants either for work or school may skew these numbers lets say a range of 10-50% of the 4.71% are illegal = 0.5-2.3%
4. The economic benefit per student in the remaining population is between $53 per student and $272 per student.
5. An equivalent benefit to the student population with out implementing this policy would only raise costs for the local tax payer by $7.25-37 annually or 60 cents – $3 a month
6. Are we really that stingy?
iv. Disagreement on the “Compelling interest” Benefit
1. Benefit argument is based on the assumption that immigrants are free loading on the system, when in fact they do actually pay taxes without receiving all of the same benefits that citizens receive.
2. Harms
a. Harms of Exclusive economic systems
b. Harms of Systemic Prejudice
i. Redlining > Permanently economically depressed regions in town > Higher crime rates > Higher costs
ii. The same can and does happen in other situations and has been proven that teaching with a mind towards upward mobility is the best way to produce productive members of society
iii. To require tuition would put up road blocks to education, and trap certain demographics that have lived as an underclass, in low paying jobs and will reinforce a self fulfilling xenophobia. Which is not unlike what happened to the African American community under Jim Crow laws, from which we as a nation have still not recovered.
5. SECTION 5. Effective Date.
a. Text:
i. This Resolution is to take effect from and after its passage, as provided by the Charter of Knox County, Tennessee, the public welfare requiring it.
b. Objection:
i. For all the reasons above the public welfare does not require it
ii. For all the reasons above the Harms to our school administration would yield results that can be achieved by other means
1. that do not threaten to demolish constitutional rights which we all hold dear
iii. What the Public Welfare Requires is not to diminish the dignity or rights of persons in this country Citizens, visitors, legal and illegal.