Blame it all on Old Navy.

Yeah. But they still have the right to wear the shirt wherever they are. They may have to deal with the consequences from the educational institution. But your American rights don't just evaporate inside a public, taxpayer funded school. Plus, they knew that whatever consequences the school would have handed them would have been jack shit. Not to mention, America is better than Ireland.

 

No. Their rights aren't "waived" no matter where they go. They just have to understand that in certain circumstances they may be punishes for exercising those rights if it somehow interrupts school activities. That's a very big difference, wouldn't you agree.

 

What is the difference between having your rights waved, and being punished for exercising them? Sounds like a battle of semantics to me.

I think the supreme court has refused to hear cases of schools telling kids what to wear. If these kids and their American flags were disrupting class they had every right to send them home.

 

What do you mean, as American citizens their rights exist as an American citizen. The poster made it sound like their rights as citizens are taken away once they enter the building. Being punished by the government and a school are two different things.

Plus, either way, they shouldn't have been punished for it. They were wearing the American flag in an American School in an American state.

 

Edit: I can see where you're coming from. America junior doesn't really understand American pride. Probably because Canada has nothing to be proud about.

 

It's a public high school funded by the government. They kind of are being punished by government.

 

Yeah, I know. That's true. But the teacher who posted earlier said I don't know what the law are in California implying that by walking into a school their first amendment rights were waived by law. That's all I was trying to clear up.

 

It was a joke. You hold the same opinions held by a lot of other people in this thread. There would be no reasonable reason for me to actually think that the fact that you hold that same opinion somehow changes because you're from Canada.

 

My apologies, given the debate over semantics I should have been more clear. I spoke to the regulations in schools that I'm familiar with, and mistakenly stated it as having the force of law. If you'd like, I can check with my district's legal office and and get a for-sure answer on the exact legal framework of students' rights. The bottom line, however, remains the same - students in a school building cannot exercise their rights as citizens to the same extent that adults can.

Of course, that's for an area 3000 miles away from the one in question. Someone who works in CA schools could give us much better insight than me.

 

I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm just sayin. You can check with the district office if you want, sure.

 

I thought that this was made clear already.
They're children. Children should do as they're told.
I don't care what ethnic background they are.
Or, for that matter, where they are. Canada, Mexico or some other fucking place.
Children. Seen and not heard.

When they don't do what they're told, when they're told, let their parents take some time off work and do some parenting. We have to be able to trust our educators to be able to do their jobs, teach our children and keep them safe.
If a school doesn't have a parents support, maybe they shouldn't be in school.
As Americans, we already expect far too much.
Maybe a little more respect should be shown to the people who care for our children.
We sure as fuck expect it from them. And maybe it's time the children start respecting them too. They can start by doing what they're fucking told.

 

The impression I got was that this small group of kids deliberately co-ordinated wearing the stars and stripes on a day when they knew it would piss off other kids, to make a point. A bit of a douchey thing to do? Maybe.

Based on my assumption, I don't think it was unreasonable for school staff to be concerned. The kids could have ended up pissing off other people to the point where they got their asses kicked, and the school doesn't need to deal with that. Making then take the shirts off and suspending them was an overreaction in my opinion, but at the same time, it looks like these kids were wearing the clothes not out of any national pride, but to deliberately antagonize other students, and it's the school's job to make sure shit doesn't go down. They definitely took a shitty approach to that responsibility, however.

Then again, I'm Canadian, and we're brainwashed into thinking every possible display of every culture must be celebrated, so my $0.02 counts for shit.

 

I'd love for KIMaster and Kujahger to keep posting in this thread.

How can California reasonably exist with so much strain on public services? I was reading an article about how in theory letting illegals live in a state is okay because they consume and therefore pay taxes through goods and services (by most accounts they pay even more per capita because they rarely save money), but in the US taxes are so low to begin with that the socio-economic strain far outweighs any fiscal return.


Regarding Canadians: We're a lot more racist than we appear to the world. If 50% of my city spoke Spanish and broken English, there would be tons of backlash in the media.

 

Well, maybe you guy have a point. But on May 6th 200 other kids protesting the American flag shirts walked out of class waving Mexican flags. I'd call that a much bigger disruption. So it wasn't only the kids wearing their country's flag that caused a stir in school activities.

edit: The irony here is that had school official been lazy/not want to get involved none of this would of happened. Of course that's not the case most of the time. But it was this time.

 

Those children should have been sent home also.
The point I made was that they're children.
Obviously, doing what they want to do, instead of doing what they're told to.

 

Illegals might well save less money per capita, but their overall consumption is very low. Most of them are doing unskilled manual labor, and since they're illegal, their paycheck is only half of what a legal would make. On top of that, I think they buy a lot of second-hand goods (standard behavior for lower income brackets) from street vendors and the like, none of which brings money back to the state.

And they don't pay any state and local taxes since they are, of course, illegal. When you consider that many of them have older parents and kids, none of whom work, you realize they are a far greater strain on the system than what they add to it. This is sustainable when the economy of the state is doing terrific, as it had been since the middle of the Reagan administration until the 2000s. Of course, when things turn bad, (and the economy is always cyclical) it only compounds the problems.