Re: Case

1

I wouldn't say it's uncontroversial, but I would say it's true.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
2

And yes, I would expect Malkin's readership to see it rather differently.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 8:20 PM
horizontal rule
3

I would like Justin Bieber's opinion on the matter.


Posted by: Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 8:32 PM
horizontal rule
4

To be sure, I was mostly trolling bjk with that comment. Or at least partly I was.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 9:17 PM
horizontal rule
5

4: The correct response was "None."


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 9:33 PM
horizontal rule
6

So how come when I say things like that (the interests of whites and Mexican-Americans conflict) you all yell at me?


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
7

So how come when I say things like that ... you all yell at me?

Because we love you James and we want you to grow up to be a fine young man.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 9:41 PM
horizontal rule
8

I would like to point out that I actually clicked through to the link (yeeeccch) and the "description" of the class/curriculum appears to be based entirely on two previous Malkin columns and a highly subjective opinion piece by a man who describes himself as a former teacher at the school.

It may be true -- I have no doubt that somewhere in the US, someone is teaching children something like this. But I wouldn't put much stock in this particular write-up.

I would love to write up some of the Confederate history (or heck, Union history) that gets uncontroversially taught, remove identifying names, and see what Malkin's readers thought.

At least Malkin has the excuse that she is playing the role she is paid for. I'm really irritated at the NYT's latest article on the immigration bill, which pushes outright misinterpretation that the Democrats are being tough on enforcement. What a load of hooey. If you're going to shill for immigration reform, NYT, just keep doing it honestly. No need to make up lies.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 10:52 PM
horizontal rule
9

Yeah, I said in the other thread that it sounded like the Arizona law was aimed at MEChA, but it sounds like it's actually targeting this Tucson program that conservatives appear to have interpreted as something like MEChA-in-disguise.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 10:56 PM
horizontal rule
10

I was in MEChA in middle school. Zero Hispanic ancestry, but all of my friends were in it and they invited me (made me) come too. Lots of fun, and I don't think I was indoctrinated, but then again, I do subscribe to a similar view point as described in the block quote in the OP.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 04-30-10 11:07 PM
horizontal rule
11

MEChA-in-disguise.

Hola, Optimus?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 5:52 AM
horizontal rule
12

Mecha madrassas

Please please please tell me that such schools have Qur'an-quoting battle-bots! 'Cause that would make such an awesome setting for an action movie.


Posted by: MAE | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 6:01 AM
horizontal rule
13

8

At least Malkin has the excuse that she is playing the role she is paid for. I'm really irritated at the NYT's latest article on the immigration bill, which pushes outright misinterpretation that the Democrats are being tough on enforcement. What a load of hooey. If you're going to shill for immigration reform, NYT, just keep doing it honestly. No need to make up lies.

I assume you are referring to this article . I am a bit puzzled by your objection. Are you saying that, contrary to the NYT, the Democratic proposal doesn't actually tighten up enforcement.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 7:38 AM
horizontal rule
14

9: but it sounds like it's actually targeting this Tucson program that conservatives appear to have interpreted as something like MEChA-in-disguise.

Yes it is directly aimed at it. It is being pushed by Arizona's superintendent of public instruction, Tom Horne, who was in the same position pushing the same barrow back in 2008 when the Malkin guy wrote his letter. Horne--who just so happens to be running for Attorney General as a Republican--is explicit about it, Horne said his target is an ethnic-studies curriculum in the Tucson Unified School District..


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:02 AM
horizontal rule
15

||
Virginia DA jealous of Arizona bringing all the crazy. (Terrible reporting as well.)

In papers sent to UVA April 23, Cuccinelli's office commands the university to produce a sweeping swath of documents relating to Mann's receipt of nearly half a million dollars in state grant-funded climate research conducted while Mann-- now director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State-- was at UVA between 1999 and 2005.
If Cuccinelli succeeds in finding a smoking gun like the purloined emails that led to the international scandal dubbed Climategate, Cuccinelli could seek the return of all the research money, legal fees, and trebled damages.
Doing something about this, Stanley.
|>


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
16

Link.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
17

Are you saying that, contrary to the NYT, the Democratic proposal doesn't actually tighten up enforcement.

Basically, yeah. I mean, take claim by the NYT:

It begins with "zero tolerance" for immigrants trying to enter the country illegally, by tightening border enforcement and by barring them from taking jobs in the United States.

This is not a new proposal, it is CURRENT US POLICY. Every politician ever has talked about border enforcement. The Dems have bumped up their rhetoric a bit but the substance of their proposal is laughable. There are freaky proposals in their scheme (national birth/death registration, national biometric ID card), but they're not meaningfully about enforcement, and certainly not about tightening borders.

Ironically, when it comes to enforcement, the Obama administration -- without any legislative or many regulatory changes at all -- has boosted deportation massively (Bush was deporting something like 260,000 a year, and Obama is on pace to hit 400,000).

But none of those policy decisions are reflected in the current Dem proposal, and virtually all of them relate to after-the-fact punishment for someone who manages to slip off the rails after they arrive here -- and often after they arrived here legally (e.g. deporting a green card holder for a theft conviction).


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
18

Busy day ahead. See you in the streets!


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:51 AM
horizontal rule
19

I'm working today, but good luck with the barricades. I may see you out powderhorn way tomorrow if the weather's good. Not that I'd know I was seeing you. All you anarchists look alike to me.


Posted by: Jimmy Pongo | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
20

17

This is not a new proposal, it is CURRENT US POLICY. Every politician ever has talked about border enforcement. The Dems have bumped up their rhetoric a bit but the substance of their proposal is laughable. There are freaky proposals in their scheme (national birth/death registration, national biometric ID card), but they're not meaningfully about enforcement, and certainly not about tightening borders.

I don't really understand this. The key to enforcement is not tighter border controls but making it harder for illegals to live and work in the United States thus reducing the incentive to enter illegally. Current law has made it easy to work illegally in the United States because it relies on easily forged IDs. A national hard to forge ID card would seem to facilitate much tougher laws against hiring illegals.

Ironically, when it comes to enforcement, the Obama administration -- without any legislative or many regulatory changes at all -- has boosted deportation massively (Bush was deporting something like 260,000 a year, and Obama is on pace to hit 400,000).

So Obama is being tougher than Bush as the article suggested.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 9:13 AM
horizontal rule
21

Doing something about this, Stanley.

Huh?

And why are you reading The Hook? I mean, no knock on 'em, but they're one of two local watered-down Village Voice wannabes, so I'm curious why you'd be reading (unless it just popped up in google news results or something).


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
22

21: Worse than that, Atrios linked to it. You're a resident, so I assume you could fix it somehow. If you really wanted to that is, don;t let me ruin your weekend.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
23

22: I guess if I go burn shit down, the records will be lost, right? Seems easy enough. (I keed, I keed, lurking local prosecutor's office!)


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
24

I don't really understand this. The key to enforcement is not tighter border controls but making it harder for illegals to live and work in the United States thus reducing the incentive to enter illegally.

Whether it's "the key" is a matter of opinion. Immigration is the result of pull factors (causing people to want to come to the US) and push factors (making them want/need to leave their countries).

If we eliminated all pull factors tomorrow -- if we made the US a massively undesirable country to come to -- there would still be push factors. Some people would then probably choose to go to Mexico or Costa Rica or Panama or Canada or wherever rather than the US. Others would still come here.

It's also important to keep in mind that it's basically impossible to tighten enforcement on undocumented immigrants without tightening it on legally documented ones (and Puerto Ricans, and foreign tourists, and track stars and opera singers and anyone else not born in the 50 states). Our system is just too huge and varied and self-contradictory and slow and clumsy to allow for that kind of targeted clampdown.

So it's a matter of deciding how much daily harassment and demonizing of people who look "like immigrants" we're willing to tolerate as a country. Do we want a brilliant young Malaysian attending Harvard Business School to be subject to arrest if he steps outside without his student visa? Do we want an elderly Italian woman in a nursing home to be evicted if her family can't find her citizenship papers from back in 1925 when she naturalized? Every enforcement decision we make has consequences and costs as well as benefits and -- well, I was going to say savings, but I can't off the top of my head think of any that I'm sure involve savings.

Current law has made it easy to work illegally in the United States because it relies on easily forged IDs. A national hard to forge ID card would seem to facilitate much tougher laws against hiring illegals.

We don't need to write tougher laws; we have pretty tough ones already. They are just sporadically enforced (and rarely against the employer).

But a hard-to-forge ID card is hardly going to solve the problem: the latest test of the government's fancy E-Verify system showed that half of all fraudulent applicants got through. It wasn't because the cards are so easy to fake; it's because if I lend you my green card when you go to apply for a job, the system is going to tell your new boss that the green card is legit. Which it is. It just isn't yours.

So Obama is being tougher than Bush as the article suggested.

The article focused on Senate Democrats' proposal. The legislative branch, as I said, is proposing creepy national people-tracking mechanisms, but their gestures toward enforcement are mostly sound and fury. The article made it sound like there was some substance to it.

In contrast, as I said, the executive branch has already made a number of changes that are significantly ramping up the the after-the-fact enforcement -- again, often around deporting people we already invited into the country.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
25

24: But a hard-to-forge ID card is hardly going to solve the problem: the latest test of the government's fancy E-Verify system showed that half of all fraudulent applicants got through. It wasn't because the cards are so easy to fake; it's because if I lend you my green card when you go to apply for a job, the system is going to tell your new boss that the green card is legit. Which it is. It just isn't yours.

Isn't that the point of including biometric data in the hard-to-forge ID card? If you lend your friend your card, the biometrics are less likely to match.


Posted by: Dave W. | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
26

There's biometric data there now. Green cards have your fingerprint. But E-Verify is checking "Is this card work-authorized?" rather than "Does this card's fingerprint match this person? Does it also match the fingerprint in the government's records?"


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 5:46 PM
horizontal rule
27

some of the Confederate history (or heck, Union history) that gets uncontroversially taught,

On the other hand, the history of American slavery from the slave-owners/pro-slavery point of view can be more disturbing to students than the same history from the slave's point of view.* I think this has come up before.

*And of course this is far different from teaching the confederacy as current pro-confederacy people would like to present it.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 8:40 PM
horizontal rule
28

Green cards have your fingerprint.

Yes. Which I find a bit creepy, actually. I did not enjoy having my fingerprints taken for my green card application; I was offended by the presumption of suspicion that seemed to underlie the entire process. At the same time, I didn't feel that I had any right to object (and, in pragmatic terms, it would have been crazy to raise an objection, in any case): when you're applying for residency status in a country other than your own home and native land, you really are nothing more than a humble petitioner, and the new country doesn't owe you anything, and you're free to leave at any time. I don't necessarily agree with this, btw, or think that it's a good thing: in my ideal world, we would have something close to open borders. But it is the current reality, more or less.

That said, I would be very wary of any intensification of surveillance, and any expansion of the biometric regime.


Posted by: Mary Catherine | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 9:36 PM
horizontal rule
29

Your mom has my fingerprint.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 9:45 PM
horizontal rule
30

That said, I would be very wary of any intensification of surveillance, and any expansion of the biometric regime.

It's already worse than that; people coming under certain types of statuses are required to submit DNA samples.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 9:54 PM
horizontal rule
31

24

If we eliminated all pull factors tomorrow -- if we made the US a massively undesirable country to come to -- there would still be push factors. Some people would then probably choose to go to Mexico or Costa Rica or Panama or Canada or wherever rather than the US. Others would still come here.

So what? The idea is to reduce illegal immigration not entirely eliminate it which is impractical. And I doubt there would be any great number coming here if Mexico for instance, was closer, more desirable and easier to get into.

Some border control is desirable to make it expensive to enter illegally. If it is nearly impossible to earn back this expense most potential illegals will not undertake it.

It's also important to keep in mind that it's basically impossible to tighten enforcement on undocumented immigrants without tightening it on legally documented ones (and Puerto Ricans, and foreign tourists, and track stars and opera singers and anyone else not born in the 50 states). Our system is just too huge and varied and self-contradictory and slow and clumsy to allow for that kind of targeted clampdown.

Again so what? As with any law enforcement situation the idea is to design policies that catch the criminals while imposing as little inconvenience as possible on honest citizens. Naturally it is impossible to avoid all adverse effects. And I don't consider being required to identify yourself when being hired a particularly onerous requirement.

So it's a matter of deciding how much daily harassment and demonizing of people who look "like immigrants" we're willing to tolerate as a country. Do we want a brilliant young Malaysian attending Harvard Business School to be subject to arrest if he steps outside without his student visa? Do we want an elderly Italian woman in a nursing home to be evicted if her family can't find her citizenship papers from back in 1925 when she naturalized? Every enforcement decision we make has consequences and costs as well as benefits and -- well, I was going to say savings, but I can't off the top of my head think of any that I'm sure involve savings.

The proposal is to make it harder to work illegally so your examples are off point.

We don't need to write tougher laws; we have pretty tough ones already. They are just sporadically enforced (and rarely against the employer).

They are rarely enforced against employers because any employer who is not an complacent idiot can easy avoid violating the laws while hiring lots of illegals. This is because the laws are not in actual fact "tough" as regards employers.

But a hard-to-forge ID card is hardly going to solve the problem: the latest test of the government's fancy E-Verify system showed that half of all fraudulent applicants got through. It wasn't because the cards are so easy to fake; it's because if I lend you my green card when you go to apply for a job, the system is going to tell your new boss that the green card is legit. Which it is. It just isn't yours.

Even if true this statistic is meaningless because it doesn't take into account the people E-Verify deters from applying. As for lending IDs that is why serious IDs have your picture on them. And lending IDs is less popular when it can get the lender in serious trouble. And isn't the social security security adminstration going to notice that one number is associated with too many jobs.

The article focused on Senate Democrats' proposal. The legislative branch, as I said, is proposing creepy national people-tracking mechanisms, but their gestures toward enforcement are mostly sound and fury. The article made it sound like there was some substance to it.

I don't see the "sound and fury" myself. I am pretty hawkish on immigration and they strike me as useful sensible proposals which would help a lot if actually passed. Now maybe they actually have loopholes which would render them ineffective. This is something the Democrats would probably be happy to pull if they thought they could get away with it. But it would be nice if you cited the specific provisions that show this to be the case.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 11:55 PM
horizontal rule
32

26

There's biometric data there now. Green cards have your fingerprint. But E-Verify is checking "Is this card work-authorized?" rather than "Does this card's fingerprint match this person? Does it also match the fingerprint in the government's records?"

So it would be easy to make the system more effective.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 05- 1-10 11:56 PM
horizontal rule