1. A single state is not representative of the entire country. Let's keep in mind this is probably the state hardest impacted along with Texas.

2. Of those English learners, what percentage are illegal immigrants realistically? What about citizens who speak Spanish primarily? In California, this is not uncommon.

3. How would you spend 30% of your income on education at the K-6 level (where 3/4ths of these students are)? That seems virtually impossible no matter the income bracket and way you count taxes. If you're paying for private school, you don't have this problem.

4. If this is indeed such a large group at many schools, then those programs listed on the item you linked should be effective in serving both large populations, yes? If they aren't is that really the fault of immigration or simply a failing of public schools, which is not inherently due to immigration.

5. All of this to say that your kid getting slightly less time in K-6 education (after that, the population of English learners is about 6% of the population, which doesn't even take into account English learners who are not illegal immigrants, so likely even as low as 3% or less) is worth this hardline immigration policy? In a class of 40 students, that's two maximum from 6 grade on. I don't see how you can justify that.

6. Again, this is the state hardest impacted. Because California public schools have 3% or lower English learners that are illegal immigrants in their public high schools and other states likely have far less, we separate families?

Yes that's why I said hundreds of thousands of kids are being negatively impacted and not millions of kids.

> All of this to say that your kid getting slightly less time in K-6 education

You mean an incredibly sub-par education for kids key formative years!

Why do you seek to downplay the issue? Why not seek to solve the issue - perhaps in other ways?

> I don't see how you can justify that.

It's an easy justification to make - you just don't care because you aren't personally impacted.

A couple of thousand kids temporarily separated from parents who are knowingly breaking the law in exchange for ensuring hundreds of thousands of kids get a proper education is an easy decision to make.

And that's only looking at a single issue!

> You mean an incredibly sub-par education for kids key formative years!

This just sounds like scapegoating. I think the subpar education of public schools is not caused by immigration. Public schooling needs massive changes, immigration or not.

> It's an easy justification to make - you just don't care because you aren't personally impacted.

No, I'm caring about the kids of illegal immigrants as well as kids in the US. I don't value people differently by nationality or the status of their parents. And I value severity over quantity generally when it comes to moral issues.

> Why not seek to solve the issue - perhaps in other ways?

Again, I'm all for solving it, but I don't see how this was justified at all. Mind you, we don't even have any tangible numbers on the effects of this policy.

How can you confidently say that?

All the evidence points to it being a key problem.

> And I value severity over quantity generally when it comes to moral issues.

How do you judge severity?

You seem to be using your feelings as the barometer. Reality is not so simple.

We know that a poor education significantly increases the likelihood you will get involved in crime, go to prison, live in poverty, etc.

So what do you think will happen when you screw up the education of hundreds of thousands of kids?

All of the studies on poor/insufficient teacher pay, the funneling of money away from public K-12 schools, the personal experiences of many around me, some from California public schools, broken incentives from pushes for standardized testing from administrations the past two decades. The list goes on. And now you're going to say that immigration is anything significant compared to all of that?

> All the evidence points to it being a key problem.

All the evidence I have been asking for and you have not given?

> You seem to be using your feelings as the barometer. Reality is not so simple.

I'm sorry but having empathy for others is not judging severity on feelings.

> We know that a poor education significantly increases the likelihood you will get involved in crime, go to prison, live in poverty, etc.

Yes, having non-native English speakers in your school will cause your life to be ruined. Of course. Again, we're going to have to disagree on the effects here. This isn't going anywhere. The retreat to "you're bringing feelings into this" says a lot.

Every item you listed applies to states doing a lot better on the education front than California.

> All the evidence I have been asking for and you have not given?

What evidence will convince you that a high proportion of non-English speakers likely has a serious influence on educational outcomes for a school?

Would a strong negative correlation between number of non-English speakers at a school and school performance convince you?

And then once you have been convinced what will convince you that the most just and moral approach is strict border security?

Somewhat, once also adjusted for funding per student, pay of teachers, all those other factors.

> And then once you have been convinced what will convince you that the most just and moral approach is strict border security?

There's a difference between strict and inhumane border security. You act as if we have to pick one. I don't think you'd ever convince me on that front because I can picture so many better options to this policy. There is no obligation or moral requirement that we cause this harm due to lack of any other options.