Post what you want! Self-linking makes the interwebs go round.
- Mystery Man mourns the soon-to-come end of cigarette magic, and links to videos of some masters of cigarette manipulation. This isn’t the first time a large, well-developed field of magic has been made obsolete by the changing times; paper cone tricks (using the paper cones that stores put your purchases in, before paper bags replaced them) were once a major staple of magic acts. But once paper cones stopped being a common daily object, the tricks looked like — well, they looked like tricks. So magicians moved on.
- Why boycotting Arizona makes sense.
- What “Alas” would have looked like on Geocities.
- Dieting can cause heart disease, cancer. In other words, stress is bad for health.
- The usual right-wing nonsense about DDT seems to be going around again. Inoculate yourself by reading Bug-Girl: DDT, Junk Science, Malaria, and the attack on Rachel Carson, then Malaria and insecticide resistance, and if you want more see her collection of links.
- Arizona’s legislature prepares to attack free speech — basically, in order to protect white people from criticism.
- “Boys’ poorer reading levels in a recent study are feeding a troubling tendency to lower literacy expectations for boys, say Caryl Rivers and Rosalind C. Barnett. It’s just as destructive as the old myth about girls’ math inferiority.”
- Roman Vishniac: The Photographer’s Lies. Vishniac’s famous photos of Jewish life in Europe before WW2 have had a huge influence on what we imagine that Jewish life to be like. They were also extremely deceptive. Fascinating.
- Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline
- “Downfall” Hitler videos being yanked from Youtube due to copyright claim.
- The Silence of Our Friends is back!
- Rabbi Brant and an Israeli friend debate the origins of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It’s rare to see this subject debated intelligently and respectfully; I hope this becomes a series.
- This Is Alabama—We Speak English.
- Funny how the Tea Partiers, who are soooo against government intrusion, don’t seem to be objecting to Arizona’s new law.
- NEW DATA: 97% Of Transgender Individuals Report Being Mistreated Or Harassed At Work
- Bullying and the Wall of Silence. How schools claim that bullying never, ever happens here.
- Why do we bother putting so much effort into fighting counterfeit cash?
- Wall Street’s amazing, hard-to-defend, profits
- Rebecca Allen reviews The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms by N.K. Jemisin.
- A collection of comics, demonstrating that virtually all comics are funnier if the original punchline is replaced with “Christ, what an asshole.”
Myca:
then the children of undocumented immigrants, born here, are legal citizens.
I’m not aware that I challenged this in the first place. What’s your point? Dianne is the one who introduced the idea that you have to have an unbroken chain of legal immigrant ancestors to legitimately claim citizenship, not me. I know the law.
And I’m saying that I don’t think so. I’ve already said that it has the potential to lead to racist outcomes. You raise a legitimate concern, and I won’t be surprised if there are individual incidents of such. But I doubt that “far more brown Americans” will be harassed in reality.
It seems to me that order for there to be a racist outcome a cop has to deliberately stop someone on the basis of their race instead of for good reason, demand their ID when they have no such reason to stop the person in the first place or have no reason to demand their ID at all, and then either execute the law if they don’t have the proper ID or make up some reason to harass them via some invented problem with their immigration status if they DO have the proper ID. Are some few cops going to try this? Maybe. But I just don’t see this kind of thing increasing in a “far more” magnitude.
I don’t discount that some of the cops out there are going to hassle someone for “driving while brown”. I’d certainly bet there are some. But those cops probably are already hassling people for “driving while brown”. If they are actually American citizens then showing their license – which the cops always ask for and check over anyway, God knows mine’s been closely examined enough – will end the issue. If it doesn’t, said cop is going to quickly find him or herself in a world of hurt because immigration inquiries on the basis of police stops are going to be scrutinized pretty closely by the ACLU and other such organizations.
The “far more brown Americans will be hassled” scenario means that the cops are going to have to start stopping a whole lot more “brown Americans” for no good reason. Cops are pretty busy. I don’t think they have the time. I think that far more illegal aliens are going to find themselves turned into ICE and far more legal aliens are going to have to remember to obey a Federal law instituted under FDR and carry their green card or visas with them at all times, but “good” for the former and “that’s been the law for a long time, folks, and I’d have to do it in your country” for the latter.
Kudos to the ACLU and other organizations for the efforts I imagine they’ll mount to keep a close eye on the enforcement of this law. The potential for it to be implemented certainly is there. But the reality right now is in the realm of speculation, not certainty. I don’t think it’s going to lead to an increase on the order of “far more”. You do. It’s a legitimate concern. We’ll see.
I will say that a sharp increase in the number of illegal aliens being turned in to the ICE and a sharp increase in the number of legal aliens suffering the consequences of not carrying their ID will not be prima facie evidence of racism. That’s the expected result of the law. It will be evidence that police are enforcing a law that didn’t exist before, especially in cities where the administration up to this point had declared themselves “sanctuary cities” and ordered their cops not to do anything when they encountered such situations. If the proportion of illegal aliens of a particular ancestry who are turned in to ICE is greater than their overall proportion in the illegal alien population then you have evidence of racism.
It’s clear that you disagree with me, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tom Ridge, Meg Whitman, Latin@ activists themselves, and nearly everyone who might be actually affected by the possible negative consequences of the law as to how bad those consequences might be.
I can understand that. After all, I think a 95% income tax on Chicago-area scoutmasters is perfectly justified. Regardless, though, my point is that since both border crime and undocumented immigration are both down and falling, why are you so committed to these possible negative consequences being justified?
There is no problem here that wasn’t already being addressed by existing law.
—Myca
Myca:
A few points:
First, that’s a big spread of years. I’d like to see the actual graph to get a better idea of whether that’s been a steady decline or is episodic to the recent economic issues, which might then reverse as the economy improves.
Second, you reacted rather angrily when I said that racist execution of the laws had been “fixed” when, for example, “greatly reduced” would have been a better choice. I claim the same distinction here. Over half a million illegal crossings of our borders is a whole lot of illegal border crossings. And therefore to say the existing laws have been doing a fine job is not, to my mind, accurate.
Third, to say that “If the new law is desperately needed to cut down on undocumented immigration” presumes that the law is solely intended to cut down on further incidents of illegal border crossings. But it seems to me it’s also intended to encourage the deportation (either by the ICE or self-deportation) of the illegal aliens now present as well. That is also a problem that needs fixing. While it’s true that the ICE still exists and deportations are occurring, the ICE is not doing enough to solve any of these problems to the satisfaction of the State of Arizona. And Arizona has both the right to have that opinion and the sovereignty to do something about it.
The actual problem is not that people are committing crimes or taking up jobs that legal residents or citizens could have taken or any of the other things that have been mentioned above. The actual problem is simply that people are breaking the law by entering our country illegally. That, in and of itself, regardless of their subsequent actions once they enter the country, justifies laws to stop it from happening. Beef up border patrolling, deny access to employment and non-emergency social services, check out those people for whom there is a reasonable suspicion that they are here illegally and remove them if they are.
Now, if you think that there’s a reason to admit more people legally, either as immigrants or as transient workers then fine. Put those arguments forward. I’ll listen. You may be right – I have never said that there are no good reasons to do so. I don’t remember arguing the proposition one way or the other. But from my viewpoint that’s a separate issue from securing the border and dealing with law breakers. Given the history of “immigration reform” in this country and issues of security that has to come first. Then we can debate whether – and if so, how – to adjust the criteria for who gets into the U.S. But citizenship and the right to vote must never, ever, be a reward for breaking the law. Even granting permanent residency (but denying citizenship) is a compromise I’m loath to make, as it still rewards breaking the law, but I am willing to consider it.
Setting aside the issue of racial profiling, the extensiveness of which I do not think we will agree about, I think there is a significant incentive to do precisely all these things built into the law. That is the provision that allows people to sue their government if they believe their government is not enforcing the law.
I can tell you that in my job as a reporter, I get calls on a fairly regular basis from people complaining that their neighbors are illegal and they called the police and the police did nothing. When I ask why they think their neighbors are illegal, they get mad and say they don’t “think,” they “know,” and they “know” because the neighbors speak Spanish or they have a lot of relatives living in the house.
These people already were calling the police. Now they can call the police and threaten to sue. So … I don’t know when, exactly, we tip from “more” to “far more,” but the conditions under which the cops are operating has just changed significantly.
There’s something I’m not sure you understand or know. My apologies if you do and simply don’t consider it significant. Police in every jurisdiction in Arizona already report to immigration authorities anyone they actually arrest who is here illegally. Yes, even the “sanctuary cities.” Sanctuary cities means the police have made a conscious decision not to be cross-deputized as immigration agents. They do this because they think public safety is better served when people report crimes and cooperate as witnesses than when they live in complete fear of all authorities. It does not mean that people who are arrested don’t have their background looked into.
Even before this law passed, even in so-called “sanctuary cities,” people ended up deported all the time because they had a tail-light out or their kid got caught at school with pot.
Even before this law was passed, nobody in Arizona who was arrested could get out of jail without proving their citizenship or immigration status. It’s led to a substantial increase in jail costs because homeless people who get picked up for drunk and disorderly and should be let go the next day often don’t have the greatest documentation. If you are here illegally, you will not get out of jail, no matter how minor the crime, and once you have served your sentence, you will be on a bus back to Mexico. In these tough economic times, it’s led to counties sending people back to Mexico even BEFORE their trials, which has led to prosecutors having to let serious criminals free because they just lost their witnesses.
But immigration laws were being enforced when law enforcement came into contact with illegal immigrants.
What’s changed is that the swath of things for which you can be asked for documentation just got a lot bigger (it includes civil infractions – so if your weeds are too high, be prepared to show documentation), and people can sue to force enforcement.
The actual problem is simply that people are breaking the law by entering our country illegally.
Well, yes, if you define breathing in the US while non-American to be illegal then non-Americans entering the US will be breaking the law. But what possible reason is there for making such a law?
Ask the governments of every other country on earth, most all of whom have the same law.
I’ve said this to other people in other contexts, and it’s something I have to remember myself now and again – if in looking at some policy question, huge quantities of people do or support something that you think is just enormously stupid, the odds are high that there is critical data that they have and you don’t.
Doesn’t mean you’re wrong on the issue, or right – just means that if you *don’t get* why they think what they think, odds are long the short circuit is on your end.
Ron, I asked you how you or I “earned” citizenship, after you brought up the “earned” language. You replied:
First of all, why assume all my ancestors were legal? There have been times in US history when the laws were set up to limit Jewish immigration, after all.
Secondly, as Charles pointed out, this is nonsense. Anyone born in the US — or outside of the US, but to a US citizen — is a US citizen. It’s not earned, except for those who aren’t born US citizens and later work for it. For all of us born US citizens, it’s pure, unearned luck.
As far as the declining rate of undocumented immigration goes, Ron is certainly correct to suspect that a lot of that is economic. Immigration (all kinds) is driven primarily by economics.
Apart from the undocumented immigration itself (which is a misdemeanor, although that will partly change in Arizona if this law ever takes effect), and apart from ridiculous right wing pseudo-studies, there’s no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit more crime. And economically, all immigration — because immigrants are typically younger and more eager to work than the average American – has a net effect of growing the economy, which creates more jobs for everyone in the long run. It’s not a zero-sum game.
That’s a paper problem, created by a law that creates a victimless crime. You could just as easily have said, during prohibition, that “the actual problem is simply that people are breaking the law by drinking.” That’s not a rational argument in favor of making prohibition laws harsher, nor is it an argument against getting rid of prohibition.
…to infuse more real-world accuracy into this conversation one would say that residency and citizenship are purchased by immigrants. Whether we come by the required money via hard work or via inherited privilege doesn’t really matter; we just, at each stage of the process, cough up.
I approve of the call for humility. But historically, I think that laws that mainly target non-white people, but are strongly opposed by the people targeted and only supported by the large majority of people who will never be hurt by the law, have a lousy track record.
This is because bigotry is a known, common blind spot. That’s why most Americans were once extremely anti-gay; we were all raised to be ignorant bigots. That “enormous quantities” of people support such ideas doesn’t make them non-stupid.
In our country’s history, has there ever been a good law
aboutin effect targeting an ethnic or racial minority, which has been strongly disapproved of by the people the law will most likely effect? I can’t think of one example.Point well taken.
Nonetheless, I don’t think this actually contradicts what I wrote. I didn’t claim that all immigrants who become citizens earned it. But, in my view, those who work hard for it can legitimately be said to have earned it.
In any case, I never earned my citizenship, and as far as I can tell neither did Ron. We were just born with it.
“that’s been the law for a long time, folks, and I’d have to do it in your country”
Actually, you wouldn’t. At least, not if the country is Mexico. Americans are not required to carry a passport in Mexico, though as of last year (or the year before? It blends together), Americans needed a passport to get back in to the U.S.
As of March 1, Americans are required to have a passport to enter Mexico, other than a 13-mile strip along the border which can be visited for up to 72 hours without a passport.
Additionally, Americans are required to purchase, carry, and return a special tourist card from INM (the Mexican immigration bureau). They fine you if you don’t have it when you exit the country.
Damn racist Mexicans!
I ‘ve spent a fair amount of time in Mexico over the last two years doing dissertation research, and don’t think that there’s any requirement to carry the tourist card wherever you go. I’ve never been asked to show it, except when departing the country. The same mostly goes for passports – the only times I’ve been asked to show mine outside an airport are in situations where ID is generally required, like checking into a hotel or on a bus passing through a military checkpoint.
…or getting pulled over in a traffic stop.
Thanks for the firsthand data, Lara.
As of March 1, Americans are required to have a passport to enter Mexico, other than a 13-mile strip along the border which can be visited for up to 72 hours without a passport.
Regardless of the merits of this law versus the AZ law, what does it matter what Mexican immigration law is like? Are you saying that the US should never be blamed for any problematic immigration (and tourism) laws as long as another country has one that is nearly as bad? Or that every individual Mexican is to blame for every law passed by their government and so they don’t deserve sympathy?
chingona
These people already were calling the police. Now they can call the police and threaten to sue.
That’s going to depend on a couple of things. One is whether the section you’re referring to is interpreted to mean that an individual cop or his/her department can be sued because they didn’t answer a call such as you described, or if it’s meant to be aimed at, say, a city council declaring themselves a “sanctuary city” or a police chief who says “We’re not going to enforce SB 1070”. Second, whether or not a local resident’s call to the cops saying “There’s 12 people living next door and they all speak Spanish” corresponds to “reasonable suspicion” on the cop’s part. I’m guessing that in at least the latter case the answer is “No.”
Dianne:
Well, yes, if you define breathing in the US while non-American to be illegal then non-Americans entering the US will be breaking the law. But what possible reason is there for making such a law?
None. That’s why no such law exists. There are plenty of legal ways for a non-American to present and breathing in America.
chingona:
Americans are not required to carry a passport in Mexico,
I didn’t say they did. I didn’t say that the law requires aliens to carry their passports with them at all times in the U.S., either. I said they were required to carry proof that they were legally present in the U.S. (maybe I said “resident”). That can be a passport with a visa. That can be a Resident Alien card. There are a few different documents that you can carry depending on your status. But the law requires you to carry something. No one may ever look at it. Nobody except the customs agent in Narita Airport ever asked me for my passport when I was in Japan, either, but I sure as heck didn’t step out of my hotel room (or tent …) without it. Just because no one asks doesn’t mean that there’s no law that says you have to carry it or that you don’t need to. In the case of Mexico, that apparently can simply be proof that you’re an American within a certain distance of the U.S./Mexican border. And apparently a tourist card from what Robert says. But I bet if you get stopped and ask for ID and you don’t have ANY identification you’re going for a ride with the nice Mexican policeman.
More worthy of replies, but I just ran out of time. Except:
The fact that or any of us are the beneficiaries of the good fortune that our parents were born here or emigrated here doesn’t mean that our right to citizenship is ephemeral and that people who are not so fortunate have as much right to American citizenship than we do. If we were born here we have a right to citizenship under the law. If you were not born here you don’t, and we as citizens get to determine through our representatives who, why and how people not born here get to enter the country and by what process they may become citizens. That fortune is involved is undeniable. So what? It’s sheer luck that any of us were born and have survived to our present age. But there are also numerous factors that are not the product of luck but of hard work and determination and sacrifice of those who came before. It’s up to us to see where we are and what it takes to preserve and improve what was passed to us so that we can enjoy it and pass it along to our descendants.
Are you saying you think there is no relationship between what a city council thinks might turn into litigation and the policies followed by the employees of that city?
Like Lara, I have never been asked to show my tourist card in Mexico. I’ve even gone through military checkpoints without being asked to show ID.
When I was in Paraguay, the Peace Corps kept our passports and visas in a safe in the office in the capital. We never had immigration paperwork on us, except when we checked out our passports to leave the country.
As tourists, Americans often are advised NOT to carry their passports with them.
I would agree it’s not particularly relevant, but RonF brought up the “I would have to do it in your country” thing. And in some countries yes, but in many countries no.
PR Tips for Tea Partiers.
What I like about this article is that it can be read as either serious advice or satire, and it works both ways. It’s the comedic equivalent of an extra-extra dry martini.
This. I’m finding the carry a passport at all time idea very strange. Passports are expensive and hard to replace. Not to mention the risk of identity theft. Why would you just carry it around?
Unless I am crossing a border, mine is always locked in a safe.
My personal experience in Japan and Canada was that I was to carry my passport (in the former case) or my American ID (in the latter case) at all times, even when I was in my canoe in the middle of a 500 acre lake in Quetico Provincial Park. When my daughter went to Australia she was told to carry her passport at all times and was given a pouch that would hang around her neck under her shirt to put it in.
But – regardless of what other countries require, the law in the U.S. is (and has been for decades) that aliens must carry U.S. government-issued ID at all times that verifies their legal presence in the U.S. So the State of Arizona has a right to presume that you are following the law and to investigate you if you don’t.
Five kids at a California High School were told to take off or reverse clothing showing American flags while at school on the 5th of May.
Apparently the kids had American flag bandannas on as well as T-shirts with American flags. They took the bandannas off when told; any kind of bandanna is against the school dress code. They were then told to either remove or reverse the American flag T-shirts or leave school for the day. They chose to leave school for the day. The boys were told by Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez that they could wear the T-shirts any other day, but that this day was reserved for expression of Mexican pride.
Sounds like these kids have a pretty good case for a violation of their First Amendment rights.
“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Daniel Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”
Wonder what kind of clothes would get you kicked of school on the preceding day — you know, Star Wars Lisp Day?
“May the Fourth Be With You.”
I don’t have time to follow the links, and I do not intend the question I am about to ask as a defense of the principal, but I am wondering if the kids wore that stuff specifically because it was Cinco de Mayo. In other words, were they trying to be provocative? Even if the answer is yes, the principal didn’t have the right to do what he did regarding the tee shirts, but if the kids were purposeful in choosing that day to wear that clothing, if they were trying to be provocative, that too raises questions.
Sadly, school administrators have immense established rights to restrict and control the clothing of minor students while they are at school, particularly if doing so serves the goal of maintaining order in school, so I wouldn’t put money on the proposition that the students have a first amendment claim against the school or that the principal was outside his established rights.
If the school adminstrators had any reason for believing that these students wearing these shirts on this day risked provoking violence or tension, then the administrators presumably have as much right to forbid them from wearing US flag t-shirts as the Supreme Court has established that they do to forbid students from wearing Confederate flag t-shirts. However, a general belief that it was impolite or disrespectful would not be sufficient, so if the school had no better reason than that given in RonF’s pullquote, then they would be acting improperly. However, I’d have to see that lack of motive substantiated by something other than Fox before I’d trust it.
It sounds like the assistant principle is an ass. The school and the school district have issued apologies to the students already and have said they did nothing wrong (other than wearing bandanas which is prohibited no matter what is on them). How is this for irony, two of the students, Matthew and Dominic, have Mexican backgrounds. Dominic is the one they are showing in all the news reports with the shirt that is total American flag, his father is Mexican. I could see if these were skinhead types taunting the other students, but c’mon, kids can’t be proud to be both American and of Mexican heritage on cinqo de Mayo?
Oh and Amp, thanks for the link love!
Richard, I listened to an audio of an interview of the mother of one of the young men involved and she says that he often wears flag-themed clothing to school (apparently he’s a fan of Old Navy clothing).
I don’t blame you. OTOH, I don’t really care what their motive was.
Yeah, this sounds like two groups of assholes on a collision course.
Group 1: If we’re talking 6 students who all wore flag-based t-shirts and bandannas on Cinco de Mayo, then yeah, they were being assholes. I mean, come on. Cinco de Mayo is a celebration of Latin@ culture. How would we respond to a group of students wearing confederate flags on MLK’s birthday?
Group 2: The school administration. Man, fuck them. I strongly believe that high school students ought to be able to engage in political protest, even of sorts I find distasteful, like this. We do not do our society any favors by deciding that free speech and civil rights are things which properly ought to only apply to adults.
As much as Group 1 were being assholes (and yes they were), they were also right. Not right about their “fuck your culture” xenophobia, but right that they have the right to express it. The administration should issue a formal apology at the least.
—Myca
As much as Group 1 were being assholes (and yes they were), they were also right. Not right about their “fuck your culture” xenophobia, but right that they have the right to express it.
I concur with their right to express their assholia but they were also doing it wrong. The US has all crap to do with Cinqo de Mayo. If you’re going to be a jerk on CdM do it right: wear a French flag. Preferably of the correct historic era. Kids these days. No sense of history.
Snerk.
:-D
—Myca
Myca – you’re saying that the relationship between MLK and the Confederacy is analagous to the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico?
Consider this, though; according to the mother of at least one of the kids – who is of Hispanic heritage – he often wears American flag themed clothing to school. So maybe he wasn’t trying to be a jerk and the only jerk here is the assistant principal.
No, not precisely analogous, but considering how often the American flag has been used of late as a symbol of racist/xenophobic nativist groups, and considering that it was apparently an organized thing scheduled for Cinco de Mayo, then, yes, it was a dick move.
Of course, I don’t expect you to recognize that. As I pointed out before, you habitually deny all evidence of racism.
—Myca
“Often wearing flag themed clothing to school” ≠ “organizing six of your friends to wear flag t-shirts and bandannas to school on a day celebrating another culture.”
I mean, there were plenty of kids at my high school who wore ‘He Is Risen’ t-shirts. Nothing wrong with that. That’s cool. To organize a bunch of people to wear them to a Hanukkah pageant? That’s an asshole move.
It’s an asshole move they ought to be allowed to make, but it’s an asshole move.
—Myca
considering how often the American flag has been used of late as a symbol of racist/xenophobic nativist groups
So it’s reasonable to presume when you see an American flag that it’s meant to express racism and xenophobia?
Ron, that sort of partial-quoting-of-a-sentence in order to distort what Myca said is dishonest, or at best indicates that you’re trying to score points rather than seriously listen to and respond to what Myca said.
you’re saying that the relationship between MLK and the Confederacy is analagous to the relationship between the U.S. and Mexico?
It’s not a bad analogy, especially when one considers the relationship between the US and Mexico in the mid-19th century. Not a perfect analogy, perhaps, but what analogy is?
Not always, no. Context matters.
—Myca
Harvard Economist Benjamin Friedman documented that a continual rise in GDP corresponds with a rise in social openness.
On the flip side, the UK’s Centre for Economic Policy Research just published a study showing that a drop of 1% GDP corresponds to the growth of 1% in the vote for right-wing and nationalist parties.
Moral: In this economy we’re all screwed, and outsiders are screwed first.