Politics '11: Keeping up with the Xornses

[superaielman]

This is something that's needed to happen for a while - and it's something that, IIRC, Bush supported (one of his few good points) but his own party forced him to back down on (at a glance, yup, mostly the Republicans killed the bill (a few Yes from them in there, but), the Democrats tenative supported with some mixed nos in there). So saying "Obama's gonna make an example on this" ... yyyyymmmaybe but uh with how much shit flew over Healthcare, you're pressing him for more shit? Yeah, okay. Nice. And I fully expect that you'd blame him as soon as shit slowed down on immigration reform if he tried to take it on.

Both parties are guilty of using immigration as a political issue instead of actually dealing with it. And what Miki said, yeah. It's an editoral, not reporting a story. The law itself is terrible, but the federal government's poor handling of the situation has put Arizona in a bad spot here.

[Taishyr]

My apologies re: the editorial part, but frankly I stopped considering anything coming from MSM as much more than an editorial a while back.

And yeah, not gonna argue that both sides have used immigration as political tokening, and that the federal government as a whole (past, present, probably future) is doing a bad job on it. But singling out Obama there was facepalm worthy to me and completely undermined the decent point they made at the end, at least for me. One of the few people I'd consider less easy to snipe at here, and... potshot made, good job.

[Grefter]

How dare people use things like their migration policies be a part of their platform!  They should be sticking to appearances and outright lies only.

Also accusations of politicising the law in the US system?  Don't you have elected law officials?  Do you not have a huge deal over which party a Supreme Court Judge favours?  Pardon me while I sit in my corner and accuse the person who built my unit 30 years ago of making my walls out of brick and mortar.

[superaielman]

There hasn't been a coherent stab at immigration policy since Bush tried (and failed) to do so a few years back.  Hopefully the attention this poorly designed law gets will draw some actual attention towards the problem instead of the usual posturing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-04-27-1Amillfaith27_ST_N.htm

Our generation way less religious than previous generations according to this poll. Obviously the group doing the polling isn't the most unbiased in the world, but this type of study is fairly interesting none the less.

[Taishyr]

Yeaaaaah very much a colored poll. This being said it also doesn't surprise me, I hate to say - given that's where my entire family has swung to and where a lot of my friends have as well. Anecdotal, but it fits what I've seen.

It kinda sucks for the parishes that have stayed good, but... eeeh, the gigachurches, I don't care for,  my only real regret would be that money was wasted there in the first place. Though they're probably the most likely to survive, sadly.

[NotMiki]

According to the Pew religious survey from...last year or so, Catholicism is the only major religion that hasn't taken a hit in the US, and the only reason why they haven't is because, unlike other religions, there is a steady flow of Catholic immigrants coming into the country from points south.

[superaielman]

The Church is getting something like a 1/5 of it's priests from Africa and Asia now. That it's not losing ground thanks to immigrants does not surprise me.

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/pima-county-sheriff-calls_n_555895.html

AZ sheriff:

Dupnik called the law "racist" and "disgusting" and "stupid" and, in his "nuanced judgment" could not be enforced without mandatory racial profiling. Dupnik's reckoning of the legal issue is that he's just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he's standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

Asked by local news station KGUN9 what he thought the solution to the law was, Dupnik replied, "The November election."

-------

And in the unintentional irony category:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/04/ahhh_good_times.php?ref=fpblg

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter says the US should begin deporting children of illegal immigrants even if they are themselves US citizens.  Hunter can be forgiven for thinking it's in kids' best interests to stay where their parents are from.  After all, inheriting his daddy's seat in congress did him wonders!

Actually deporting US citizens is, of course, ludicrously unconstitutional, but apparently that's not stopping 90 Republicans in the House from proposing a bill to do just that.

-------

The Church is getting something like a 1/5 of it's priests from Africa and Asia now. That it's not losing ground thanks to immigrants does not surprise me.

The ones coming into the US are from Central and South America, actually.

[Hunter Sopko]

And in the unintentional irony category:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/04/ahhh_good_times.php?ref=fpblg

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter says the US should begin deporting children of illegal immigrants even if they are themselves US citizens.  Hunter can be forgiven for thinking it's in kids' best interests to stay where their parents are from.  After all, inheriting his daddy's seat in congress did him wonders!

Actually deporting US citizens is, of course, ludicrously unconstitutional, but apparently that's not stopping 90 Republicans in the House from proposing a bill to do just that.

Gotta love the quote where he says something to the effect of "It's not enough just to be born in the US, it's whats in your soul."

[NotMiki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?ref=opinion

The drafter of the AZ immigration bill rebuts criticisms of it, saying it doesn't allow for racial profiling, doesn't force people to carry IDs, and is not controversial in practice.  His defense is, in short, a steaming pile of bullshit.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

What he's "forgetting" to tell you is that police don't need to have stopped you for speeding to pull you over and ask for your papers.  He's trying to make you believe that people can only be reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants if the police already had a reason to talk with them, but he's not saying that explicitly because it's not true.  A person could be in line at a grocery store or sitting down to eat at a restaurant.  If a cop has a "reasonable suspicion," that's all he needs to demand ID.

Now, what makes a cop have a "reasonable suspicion" someone is an illegal is a completely open question.  He's right that the term has some legally defined standards, totality of the circumstances and all that, but those are just general guidelines.  There's nothing in the bill that tells you what factors police should take into account, and his little van scenario is hardly the outer limit of what police will find suspicious.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

Cute little language there. "it gives any alien with a license a free pass."  Bullshit.  Replace "alien" with "anyone who would be suspected of being an illegal, including US citizens."  And replace "free pass" with "the privilege not to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit."

------------

The law, in its majestic equality, permits Hispanic and Caucasian alike to be suspected of being an illegal immigrant, questioned by the police for that reason, and arrested if they have no papers.

[superaielman]

The fact that Arizona's police union or whatever is pretty rabidly against the bill says plenty there.

[Lady Door]

http://kehrli.livejournal.com/667501.html - "I am a transsexual. (An open letter to the Washington Times)"

[NotMiki]

The fact that Arizona's police union or whatever is pretty rabidly against the bill says plenty there.

The law gives citizens a private right of action to sue police departments if those citizens feel the departments aren't doing enough to enforce the bill.  That will certainly mean police departments all over the state will have to defend themselves in court, and is a huge strain on their ability to apportion resources the way they see fit.  It's not hyperbole to say that zealously enforcing this law will tie up time and resources the police would be spending enforcing other laws.

-----------

Also, Washington Times fails forever.

[Yoshiken]

http://kehrli.livejournal.com/667501.html - "I am a transsexual. (An open letter to the Washington Times)"

As soon as I saw this, I linked it on Facebook because I knew it would interest people. Got a rush of great responses, naturally, and one idiot claiming that "If you don't like something you hear, don't listen. It's as simple as that" with regards to the prejudiced opinions.
...ever wish you could punch people through the computer?

[Lady Door]

http://kehrli.livejournal.com/667501.html - "I am a transsexual. (An open letter to the Washington Times)"

As soon as I saw this, I linked it on Facebook because I knew it would interest people. Got a rush of great responses, naturally, and one idiot claiming that "If you don't like something you hear, don't listen. It's as simple as that" with regards to the prejudiced opinions.
...ever wish you could punch people through the computer?

I love it when people hide behind half-remembered, half-quoted bits of trivia. "Right to free speech? That means I can say whatever I want to whomever whenever! Deal with it!" is not among my favorite responses.

[NotMiki]

"If you don't like something you hear, don't listen. It's as simple as that" with regards to the prejudiced opinions.
...ever wish you could punch people through the computer?

I hear ya, but where the Washington Times is concerned, it's probably good advice.  They're the print version of trolls.  They're trying to get a rise out of you.  That's no excuse for them being worthless bigots, of course, but maybe it is a good reason to ignore them.  They're like that kid in second grade that makes trouble just to get attention, so maybe the best thing to do is not give them any.  Maybe.

"Right to free speech? That means I can say whatever I want to whomever whenever! Deal with it!" is not among my favorite responses.

Hiding behind your right to speak is the fancy rhetorical way of admitting you got nothing of substance to say and throwing a tantrum instead.  If you don't like hearing people say it, try this: "Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience."

[NotMiki]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/the-court-as-mr-fix-it/?ref=opinion

A look at what the supreme court may be up to taking the CA video game case.  Usually the court only takes cases to settle a dispute among lower courts or to overturn a decision.  There's no dispute among lower circuits, which have unanimously held bans on violent video games unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court's recent history with the first amendment strongly suggests that they're not about to overturn those decisions so it's a bit of a mystery.

[metroid composite]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/

Now here's an interesting one.  Students wearing American flag T-shirts were told they couldn't, as it was a Mexican holiday and might be incendiary.  Sure, there's been plenty of "students told" stories recently, but usually the student is more left-aligned.

[Hunter Sopko]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html

Surprised this hasn't been picked up by people here yet. Anyway, notoriously anti-gay activist caught in Europe with a gay prostitute. Enjoy.

[Grefter]

As hard right anti-gay activists are showing.  Gay prostitutes?  That is something everyone can enjoy.

[metroid composite]

"I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them," he said

Help them...get it on?

[NotMiki]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/california-students-sent-home-wearing-flags-cinco-mayo/

Now here's an interesting one.  Students wearing American flag T-shirts were told they couldn't, as it was a Mexican holiday and might be incendiary.  Sure, there's been plenty of "students told" stories recently, but usually the student is more left-aligned.

Schools are always in a tough position with this kind of thing.  Clearly, they wanted to prevent race-based fighting, but they chose to do it in a way that goes against the first amendment (though students at school only get a watered-down version of freedom of expression, particularly with respect to expression that may lead to violence, so and Fox's legal analyst who says this is a blatant violation of the first amendment is wrong and should know it).  In any case, they would probably be in the right if they did what they did because they had a well-founded fear that it was going to cause a fight, but without anything to prove that, they're definitely breaking CA law.  New York has had similar issues in the past with Cinco de Mayo, because police officers would prevent people wearing gang paraphernalia from being in the parade, but of course that amounts to cops messing with people, even detaining them, based on what they're wearing.

[Sierra]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/george-rekers-anti-gay-ac_n_565142.html

Surprised this hasn't been picked up by people here yet.

Eh. By this point, I think most people just mentally truncate "anti-gay activist" to read "gay."

[Cotigo]

http://gocomics.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c5f3053ef013480712c11970c-800wi

[Pyro]

Elena Kagan is nominated to the Supreme Court by the president.

I'm pretty sure I've seen more frothing-at-the-mouth from progressives than conservatives on this.

Also in the news, the president pushes for some "Revision of the Miranda rule" when it comes to Terrorism arrests. As a political action this is flat-out retarded. Most of the folks who are clamoring for being meaner to terrorists would sooner physically scalp the president than vote for him. And civil liberties folks are likely to get up in arms about it even if it goes nowhere at all.