Look forward to your hard work!

Have you ever wondered about a situation that you thought was cut and dry but the people voted the opposite way? To-nite was that night at Framingham Townhall. Information was provided that conclusively proved that the Framingham Adult ESL Plus program has some issues. In fact, one major issue, it is discriminatory towards LEGAL residents of the town who played the immigration game right and followed the law and did everything right.

It seems the Adult ESL Plus is so fraught with Illegal immigrants that a lottery system was provided for THEM to get into the system possibly over those LEGAL people who have done it right. This was brought out nicely by town meeting members "Kim" and Jim Rizoli and others. Jim's fair solution was to use money that was supposed to go to this questionable Adult ESL PLUS program and put it into a "Resiliency Program" that has ALL American Citizens who are in the Framingham school system.

What could possibly be wrong with that? Plenty. The Town Meeting Members voted for the Illegal Immigrants over the CITIZEN Framingham kids by backing the Adult ESL Plus program that is KNOWN to have a quite sizable amount of Illegal immigrants. I'm still thinking that maybe I was dreaming when this happened, I wasn't. Apparently Illegal Immigrant ADULTS are favored over the Americans own children, incredible. I have never been more ashamed of my town and the people in it.

Joe Rizoli
Framingham
Precinct 14 TMM

I. Actually thought the good people would see through the ESL scam but I guess I gave them to much credit. Sad day for the town! This will just encourage more pork barrel programs to come here.
Jim@ccfiile.com

The problem here is our town Government is NOT standing for "PRINCIPLES":
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments

They are going by what I call princiPALS, a tendency to agree with the crowd, friends persons, even though the principles have been established, in this case, by LAW. This ESL program has done a great propaganda campaign, it has hosted fundraisers, and has had celebrities come and promote this cause. A lot of the TMM and town officials have gone to these functions and now feel that they MUST support these programs by obligation, even though the programs go against principle and ethics of fair play. So that is the start of corrupt government. It's really sad when the Lawmakers start advocating for the Lawbreakers.
I really feel bad for those LEGAL people in these programs that try to follow the rules only to be stopped by Scams like this. It was told in the paper that it can take THREE lottery's before a person is automatically accepted in the program. An Illegal alien who just came here one week ago, broke all the laws getting here, could get into the program because these people play the "don't' ask don't tell" policy. The Framingham School department is starting to act like third world countries in how they provide services to programs like this. It's really shameful.

Joe Rizoli

Hmmm seems like if demand is so high for the program that they need a lottery, maybe it should be EXPANDED not defunded. Maybe next year they should double the allocation for this program which supports residents in our community.

The program is illegal, and most of all discriminatory.
It's against the LAW to aid and abet illegals in this country in any way shape or form. Even if the program is in your mind is a good one..
http://tinyurl.com/9pmaw
I guess criminal activity is just the norm in this town, and people wonder why things are like they are. I'm not done with them.
Jim@ccfiile.com

I too was confused by Town Meeting's reaction. I'm confused that the message sent is that the rights of legal residents are either equal or second to the rights of folks who are here illegally. People who followed the rules, paid the price to come here and start a new life are given zero advantage? How is that fair? I don't think anybody last night said that we shouldn't have Adult ESL; people were just saying that it should be open exclusively to legal residents. I can't understand how that is discriminatory. I honestly can't.

A teacher whose name I can't remember stood up to talk about how important education is, and that the children are our future (I'm summarizing). Of course I agree with her, but how is the education of adults who are here illegally more important than the education of the kids in our high school? Two motions were made to transfer monies to the Resiliency for Life program at the high school, both of which were voted down. If the children really are our future, how is it that the high school's Resiliency for Life Program is given one fifth the amount that the Adult ESL program receives? That's not a rhetorical question - i really do want to understand.

I am guessing the majority of people voted in support of the program not because of "group-think" as suggested by Joe above, but because they think the program provides a valuable service. It seems those opposed were not arguing that it is not a valuable program, but rather that it discriminates against legal immigrants by not ensuring illegal immigrants do not take up the limited spots available. This argument was not persuasive. We do not have any reliable data to say this program is full of illegal immigrants. It is not their job to check the immigration status of community members. They are simply providing an educational service, not hiring these people for a job. If those opposed are concerned that legal immigrants aren't getting adequate access to ESL programs, they should propose increasing the ESL program. By de-funding it entirely, you would be robbing those legal immigrants from an opportunity to become more contributing members of our community.

John - I understand your point, but we are, of course, faced with limited and decreasing funds. If we give ESL more money, and if we give MAPS more money, that's more money taken away from another program. Can you agree that it's an interesting message that's being sent, given, as I said, that the high school Resiliency for Life program is given 1/5 of the funding that the Adult ESL program is given? Bear in mind, of course, that there is money in the school budget earmarked for Adult ESL as well. It's a matter of where we want our money spent, since there is a finite and ever-dwindling amount.

To this comment "It's not their job to check the immigration status . . . ". I respectfully disagree. Using that logic, I could say that it's not my job to report someone stealing in department store - I'm simply there to shop. Or it's not my responsibility to report a suspicious person breaking into my neighbor's house - I just live there. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but it's the same concept. We all have a responsibility.

Kim - First it is not the same concept as reporting someone stealing in a department store. Immigration status is a law that in the past has always been the responsibility of the federal government to enforce. (This week, for the first time in the history of our country, that is being challenged when the Supreme Court hears arguments about the Arizona law regarding states abilities to enforce immigration law). If you think it is your job to check immigration status, when you are at the store shopping, do you ask people for their documentation to prove they are here legally? Of course not. So why should a teacher be asked to do that? It really is NOT the same concept as reporting someone stealing.

Now, with respect to "taking away" money from Resiliency for Life, the town meeting simply approved the requested allocations. I have no idea what the costs are associated with running the different programs, but presume there are more costs associated with the ESL program, and that is why they got more money. It may also be that Resiliency for Life gets funds from other sources as well, so didn't need to request more from the block grants. But town meeting approved the grants requested. They didn't take away money from one program to give to another.

Sorry to ramble on, but also Kim, why do you think the message is that the rights of legal residents are equal or second to the rights of those who are here illegally? I would see the message Town Meeting sent by their vote as:
1) We think teaching people English is important.
2) We don't think it is the responsibility of ESL teachers to check immigration status, but rather that is the domain of federal immigration officers (ICE).
Also, I don't think there is any good data that anyone has to say these programs are teaching mostly undocumented peoples. For all we know, all the students are here completely legally.

John - no worries - you're not rambling, you're debating and discussing! A couple of things:
1. You are correct - my comparison was not spot on.
2. Both the ESL program and Resiliency for Life (as well as the rest of the programs under that section) receive funding from different sources. As I mentioned, the ESL program also is part of the school budget, so they do receive some of their funding there. And yes, the allocation to the Resiliency for Life program has been cut, so they did inititally request more funding.
3. Of course I agree that teaching people English is important, but it is equally important to note that I am echoing the sentiments of some of the legal immigrants in my neighborhood. This is not simply my personal opinion. I thought that as a TMM I have a responsibility to represent the folks in my precinct, so that's what I'm doing.
4. There actually is some very good data, which, when extrapolated, provides a baseline for determining what percentage of the population served by this program is here illegally. I don't have my papers in front of me since I'm in the office today, but will gather those tonight and post tomorrow.

I recognize that this is an incredibly sensitive topic, but I think it's also important to note that there are some very insular neighborhoods in town where a hands-off liberal approach is an easy one to take. There are others where the reality, for lack of a more eloquent term right now, hits you smack in the face.

I must say, from distant but obviously interested Milford, that I find John's explanations clear and convincing. The issue doesn't seem to me to be whether or not one or another community is "supporting" illegals. Illegal is illegal. It boils down to the ways in which illegals are identified, and subsequently--but only subsequently--treated (and by treated, I mean in terms of funding, too, because however we choose to handle the problem of illegals in our communities, it is going to cost money). So for example, my guess is that whatever the Supreme Court decides about Arizona, and when, in a few months, the Secure Communities Act kicks in here, state and local governments will always be very careful to be consistent when it comes to asking people to prove their identity (in other words, and thank God, the identification process will presumably not be turned over to vigilante groups, nor will it include the practices often preached by posters on this Patch--namely, arbitrarily calling people's legality into question based on their looks, their last names, their mastery of English--nor will it be based on the sort of suspicion-mongering and paranoia that marked earlier phases of American History, when, for example, the socialists or the communists or the Irish or the Italians or the Native Americans were the target, and people were expected to finger their neighbors. Consistency and clarity should be the rule, humanity and fairness should be the practice, always!

John - okay, my turn to "ramble". I am interested in your opinion on this very basic question: Is it fair to deny services to a legal resident in favor of an illegal resident?

Kim - I think the question is phrased in an artificial and loaded way. I don't think the program is really denying services to one group in favor of another group. Rather, they are providing a service to a limited number of people based on the limited financial resources available, and are not making a distinction between who receives those services since that isn't their job. This question didn't come up, as far as I know, last night, but would it even be LEGAL to require proof of documentation before providing ESL instruction?

I think your question is really about the fairest allocation of services given limited resources, and that is a valid question. You could ask the same about special education. Is it fair to deny services and programs to the majority of students in the school, because the school is mandated to provide very expensive services to a minority with special needs? I don't think that is really "fair", but it is the reality.

Also, I'll await your "very good data which, when extrapolated, provides a baseline...." But be very cautious about extrapolation of this stuff. And I am skeptical since I don't think ANYONE has very good data about the documentation status of these students, since no one is asking.

What the town should have done here was to send a message to this Adult ESL Plus program, fix your program. It discriminates. Also, it would be nice for people in that program now who are legal and have been in the lottery and had to wait three turns because an "illegal" took their legitimate place to let us know how they felt by that. What is happening here is the "Woodstock Principle" Back in the hippie days an event called Woodstock happened. It was supposed to be a music event where people PAYED to get in, fences were installed and security. What happened was the event was busted by tens of thousands who wanted to be at the event who didn't want to pay. The result? The "illegals" knocked down the fence and it was a free for all. How fair was this to those thousands who payed? The result was everyone now had to sit through one hell of a mess when it rained and had to uses the bathrooms and food services. The ESL program was busted by "illegals" and Instead of standing by their ground to provide these services to LEGAL people as a PRIORITY they have gone and the "foxes have taken over the hen house" Th town meeting said we would rather help the majority, the ILLEGALS in that program over our own children. That's the bottom dollar here. Make no excuses for it. Shame on the town. You people cry the schools, the schools, the children, ya right....The town had a chance to send a message here, it miserably failed. The ESL program is a SCAM on all of us.

Joe Rizoli

Unfortunately the amendment would have hurt the program for legals trying to use it. But the simple question is do we as a town have the right to ask for immigration status for those who want to make use of programs that our funded by the Town's tax dollars (except where asking would be in violation of existing law)?

For example, the law says we have to take all kids legal or not into the school system. So here you can't ask. But if there is no law with requirements on Adult education it seems reasonable to me that the Town could enforce whatever rules it wishes. In this case, it would seem that if you show legal status you are put on the priority list. If after everyone on the priority list is accepted you could either choose to close it there, or allow a lottery for the remaining open seats for those that did not provide legal status.

So the legal question here is could that condition have been put on the money transfer? i.e. Town Meeting only approves of the transfer if the parties involved will use a priority (legal status) then lottery system for program entrance?

I think what is missing in this whole discussion is what does the LAW say about providing services to those in the country illegally? For those that missed it....
http://tinyurl.com/9pmaw
So there you have it.
The ESL program is breaking the law pure and simple.
Next is the program discriminatory.....Most definitely!
To make it that the illegals have a leg up on legal immigrants in this ESL program is preposterous!
So the Town chose the illegal immigrants over their own kids......Interesting!
Jim@ccfiile.com

Another question of serious concern is, are ALL these persons in this Adult ESL Plus program FROM and LIVE in Framingham? I really doubt it. So what would that tell me? They are saying they live in Framingham and are committing fraud. If you go over to that place on Thur night the parking lot is standing room only. I have never seen so many cars over there in my life. So we have a few questions about a program that is supposed to teach about our "law" and MOST of the Brazilians at least, are ILLEGAL. So that means they are driving to the classes ILLEGALLY. The police should be there with their new plate scanners but how can that be, the person who runs the Program is married to a policeman....Are you people here connecting the dots?
A video produced by this ESL program said some people may have a wait 2.5 years to finally get into the program.
Does the program place LEGAL residences FIRST ahead of any illegal immigrant? I don't think it does because it is a lottery. How would anyone of you people feel if at a point in time our schools had so many kids in it that a lottery was used? How would you THEN feel if YOUR kid, An AMERICAN CITIZEN lost out to an illegal alien kid?

Joe Rizoli