In regard to Andrea Seastrand’s comments (“‘Safe Haven’ schools put illegal immigrants ahead of safety,” April 15) on State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson’s recommendation to school districts to declare their schools as “safe havens”: I think she would be more effective in trying to forge some common ground with her nonconservative readers by just admitting that Torlakson is being sensible enough in asking that schools be safe havens, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision she cites requiring schools to enroll all students no matter what their citizenship or immigration status. But pointing out that such a position is going to bring about some tension between the desires of law enforcement and the wishes of the schools.
Instead, she makes the unsubstantiated claim that the high court’s decision is a case of judicial legislation, that there is a $14 billion cost for California education without pointing out that undocumented immigrants pay a good share of that cost through their federal and state taxes. And she refers to an emotionally charged Maryland case in which two 17- and 18-year-old immigrant students were charged with the rape of a 14-year-old classmate as an example of what might happen as a result of a safe haven policy.
At a time when there is already so much polarization, why preach to the conservative choir when you have a chance to bring more light than heat to the subject?
Charles Peterson, Los Osos