washington post: Page 1
The only way to stop the spread of the Ebola virus is temporary travel restrictions from the affected area to other countries. Those who must return to the U.S. need to be quarantined for the incubation period of the virus. Otherwise, there will be more cases in the U.S.
Americans for a Conservative Direction ad "Choices" misleads about immigration (Zuckerberg, Facebook) - 06/10/14
"Americans for a Conservative Direction" is a front group for FWD US, which is a front group started by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and other wealthy Silicon Valley employers. Their latest ad is called "Choices" and it's as deceptive as you might expect.
Another misleading Public Religion Research Institute immigration poll (Saperstein, Preston, CNN) - 11/25/13
The Public Religion Research Institute describes itself in the highest terms possible :
Paul Farhi, shocked to see the Koch brothers defend themselves, helps the Kochs (WaPo, Koch Facts) - 07/15/13
Paul Farhi of the Washington Post offers "Billionaire Koch brothers use Web to take on media reports they dispute" (link), an example of why dislike of the MSM never goes out of style.
How the Senate amnesty bill's border commission will be bogus (path to citizenship, Americas Voice) - 01/28/13
The Gang of Eight Senate amnesty plan includes a "commission" that would decide when the border is secure. After they decide it's secure, the former illegal aliens covered by amnesty would be put on the path to citizenship.
And - showing how little trust you can put in any amnesty supporter - key players are working to undermine the commission and make it a rubberstamp.
The elites want as much skilled immigration as they can get, yet even the Washington Post admits there aren't enough jobs for all the laboratory scientists who are here now.
A new and almost entirely worthless controversy involves Barack Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina tweeting a comment about chimichangas. No, really. But, it's not entirely worthless: I'll tell you below some of the things you won't hear from either side.
In case you haven't been following along, see  for a recap. Some notes:
Tonight Bloomberg and the Washington Post will be conducting yet another worthless GOP debate. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others.
Last month, Adam Serwer (now of Mother Jones) mightily spun Obama's mini-amnesty for up to 300,000 illegal aliens in a guest post on Greg Sargent's blog in the Washington Post
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians have a cruel trick they like to play on the people of California: whine about the problems California faces in order to push one part of their agenda, while ignoring how another part of their agenda caused the problems in the first place. See the fiscal con page for a detailed description and several examples.
The latest pundit to pull the Fiscal Con is George Will of the Washington Post, who offers "Golden State blues", link. In the article, he misleads his readers by not revealing a major cause of high spending:
[California's supposedly high] tax levels are surely related to these demographic facts: Between 2000 and 2010, Los Angeles gained fewer people than in any decade since the 1890s, and Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area have the slowest growth rates since the end of Spanish rule. For the first time since 1920, the Census did not award California even one additional congressional seat.
The high taxes and Americans leaving the state are related: a major cause of both is high low-skilled immigration. George Will (who at least acknowledged immigration's role last year) does not do that this time.
Instead, he focuses on Republican state senator Bob Dutton; see his name's link for some background.
ADDED: A main promoter of the Fiscal Con is Glenn Reynolds; he links to Will's piece at instapundit . com/121134. While (as could be expected) he just quotes and doesn't add anything, he obviously approves of the article.
Teaparty: 52% unfavorable, just 35% favorable (WaPo ABC poll) (socialism gets 36% favorable) - 01/19/11
[See the March 2011 update below]
Per their enablers, the tea parties are as American as apple pie with a U.S. flag on top. So, why do many Americans have an unfavorable opinion of them?
According to a new Washington Post / ABC News poll (link), just 35% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the teaparty movement, down from 38% in September 2010 and from 41% in March 2010. Meanwhile, their unfavorable rating has jumped to 52%, from a low of 39% in March 2010. Only 16% are strongly favorable on the teaparties.
If the partiers were as mainstream and all-American as they say, wouldn't their favorability be higher? Or, did Russia and China secretly conspire to replace their otherwise supporters with COMMUNISTS?
More likely, regular Americans who are smeared as likely tea party supporters are starting to wake up to the fact that the teaparties are useful idiots for the Koch family, Freedomworks, and other interests. And, regular Americans are starting to wake up to the corrosive nature of the teaparty's rhetoric: 49% think teaparty's "political discourse" "has crossed the line", just two points down from both conservative and liberal political commentators.
More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.
Obviously, the two polls probably differ in methodology, but having an unfavorability that's comparable to socialism probably won't make the teapartiers feel too good.
Forty-seven percent of people questioned say they have an unfavorable view of the tea party, up four points from December and an increase of 21 points from January 2010. That 47 percent is virtually identical to the 48 percent unfavorable ratings for both the Democratic party and the Republican party in the same poll.
Just 32% have a favorable opinion of the teaparties, and apparently most of the movement has been among those who'd most be negatively impacted by teaparty's Libertarian Lite policies:
The tea party movement's unfavorable rating rose 15 points since October among lower-income Americans, compared to only five points among those making more than $50,000. Roughly half of all American households have incomes under $50,000, and half make more than that.
The teaparties are all about the money, so it's surprising that their popularity isn't much lower among low-income Americans. Not only would teaparty economic policies not help low-income Americans, but by not being willing to engage in the culture wars against the "liberal" elite, the teaparties have cut themselves off from any social issues-related reason why low-income Americans might support them. All they have left is their pretend-patriotism, and maybe even more lower-income Americans will see through that in time.
Community college budgets cut across U.S. & many turned away even as some want to give college slots to illegal aliens - 11/27/10
The Washington Post offers "Workers seek new skills at community colleges, but classes are full" (link) about the budget cuts that community colleges are making across the U.S. and focusing on Nevada. Needless to say, Peter Whoriskey of the WaPo doesn't reveal that even as Americans are being turned away from community colleges, Harry Reid wants to give limited college resources to foreign citizens who are here illegally with the DREAM Act.
In fact, those who'll probably complain the loudest about this situation will likely be DREAM Act supporters; they live in a fantasy world where we have enough college resources for both citizens and for illegal aliens.
On the other hand, making cuts like those described in the article is right up the tea parties/fiscal conservative alley: saving money now no matter the costs down the line.
The pro-American solution would be to enforce our immigration laws and encourage illegal aliens who want to go to U.S. colleges to return home instead. That would have the impact of freeing up jobs and college resources for Americans at the same time as reducing social welfare spending. Don't expect either the Democrats or the teaparty types to support such a plan however in both cases because their leaders are corrupt.
All over the United States, community college enrollments have surged with unemployed and underemployed people seeking new skills.
But just as workers have turned to community colleges, states have cut their budgets, forcing the institutions to turn away legions of students and stymieing the efforts to retrain the workforce.
...The institutions are "a gateway for millions of Americans to good jobs and a better life," President Obama said at a community college summit in the fall.
...Even as community college enrollments have climbed during the recession, 35 states cut higher education budgets last year, and 31 will cut them for next, according to survey data from the National Association of State Budget Officers. Those shortages are expected to worsen next year when federal stimulus money that had plugged holes in state budgets is no longer available.
In California, with a budget cut of 8 percent across the board, the community colleges turned away 140,000 students last year. In Colorado, the waiting lists for nursing programs at some of the state's community colleges have grown to as long as 3.5 years. In May, New York's community colleges stopped accepting applications for the fall semester and added students instead to a wait list.
...Here in Las Vegas, with among some of the nation's highest unemployment, the College of Southern Nevada last fall turned away 5,000 students who sought classes that were filled.
For a single biology class, "BIO 189," a prerequisite for most of the degrees in the popular health-care fields, more than 2,450 students applied for 950 seats. The college now turns away students from every class in biology, the physical sciences and math, said Sally Johnston, dean of the School of Science and Mathematics at the College of Southern Nevada.
...In Virginia, a series of reductions since 2008 has dropped annual state funding for community colleges by $105 million, while enrollment has grown by 26,000 students. In Maryland, state funding per full-time student has dropped 12 percent over the last three years.
Here in Las Vegas, state funding for the College of Southern Nevada has dropped more than 17 percent while the number of students, on a full-time basis, has risen 12 percent. While a federal stimulus bill provided funding to community colleges, that money is about to run out, too.
"In Nevada, we have to accommodate state budget priorities such as Medicare, public safety, including corrections, and K-12 education," [CSN president Michael D. Richards] said. "Higher education comes in fourth or fifth in the list."
To combat the budget cuts, the College of Southern Nevada has increased the proportion of cheaper adjunct faculty, closed two of 11 learning centers in the community, and held classes at midnight to maximize the use of class space.
"Some of the time, we simply do not have enough physical space to accommodate everyone," Richards said.
Earlier today, Glenn Beck held a "Restoring Honor" rally in Washington DC which was attended by somewhere around a few hundred thousand people; certainly an impressive turnout (UPDATE: see below). Thankfully I didn't watch it, but Part 1 of Beck's speech is at peekURL.com/vqlzrtm and Part 1 of Sarah Palin's speech is at peekURL.com/vyn3lcr
Any response to the borderline lunacy offered by Beck would become novel-length; for the novella version, see the dozens of tea parties posts.
A few quick notes:
1. Apparently Beck unveiled or was planning on unveiling something called a "Black-Robed Regiment", a reference to religious leaders prior to the Revolutionary War. It's also a class at Glenn Beck University (link).
2. The original Washington Post story on the event featured a photo showing a very small crowd and referred to the "thousands" of attendees and also highlighted that most were white. Part and parcel of their fringe ideology is that the tea party types - to be frank - aren't smart and sane enough to take effective action against those like the WaPo. The picture in question is here, and that's also an example of how the tea party types are ineffective: that post isn't going to change how the WaPo does things in the least. (That post also helps the WaPo in a way that I won't describe). I've actually described here on a few occasions how to do things in more effective ways, but long experience shows that the teaparty types aren't capable of or interested in learning.
The Washington-based FreedomWorks planned a large event Friday evening to raise money for candidates such as Mike Lee, a tea-party favorite who defeated the incumbent Utah Sen. Republican Bob Bennett in a May primary election vote. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey, a former Republican House Majority leader, said the group is working with Mr. Beck to promote shared causes."We've got a complementary relationship," Mr. Armey said. "Glenn Beck is the instructional arm, and we are the action arm."
Armey will also be sticking up for Beck on a future NewsHour show (link).
4. There may be an even more direct link between Beck's rally and the Koch family. Americans for Prosperity - a tea party organizer and key part of the Koch apparatus - bused people into the rally as AFP volunteers discuss at the end of peekURL.com/vk5mabz
If you oppose illegal immigration, the teaparty/Beck follower types are either standing in your way or are consorting with those who aren't on your side.
Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post offers "Why the GOP really wants to alter the 14th Amendment" (link) in which he outrageously lies about the push by some in the GOP to clarify or alter the 14th Amendment in relation to birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. As with others who've tried to mislead about this issue, he doesn't admit what Lindsey Graham himself implied: the push is just a charade designed to appeal to the GOP base. Not only that, but Meyerson cranks it up a few notches by lying:
By proposing to revoke the citizenship of the estimated 4 million U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants -- and, presumably, the children's children and so on down the line -- Republicans are calling for more than the creation of a permanent noncitizen caste. They are endeavoring to solve what is probably their most crippling long-term political dilemma: the racial diversification of the electorate. Not to put too fine a point on it, they are trying to preserve their political prospects as a white folks' party in an increasingly multicolored land.
The first sentence is an odious lie: Graham and other GOP leaders don't want to revoke anyone's citizenship. Those leaders do want to revoke or otherwise change the parts of the 14th Amendment that confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens, but they've never said anything about making it retroactive nor would they ever be as extreme. If Meyerson doesn't understand that - or thinks his readers won't understand that - can you trust his opinion?
And, while plenty of GOP leaders - such as George W Bush - wouldn't mind a "permanent noncitizen caste" of "willing workers" (to use Bush's term), that doesn't have to be the case. In fact, dealing with birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would take away yet another incentive to come here and, combined with increased immigration enforcement, could reduce illegal immigration. If the very unlikely happened and Graham got his wish, it's within Meyerson's power to prevent the formation of a "permanent noncitizen caste" simply by supporting attrition.
Further, the GOP and similar groups bend over backwards to reach out to non-whites, oftentimes giving oxygen to far-left concepts like corporate pluralism. The Democrats aren't shy about wallowing in far-left racial concepts and the other side of Meyerson's final smear above is a Democratic search for non-white, race-based power.
[IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW]
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post offers "Headless bodies and other immigration tall tales in Arizona" (link) in which he misleads about some aspects of immigration crime in that state, even if he gets some things right. He also helps reveal problems that supporters of Arizona's new immigration law have; more on that below. And, of course, he illustrates again just how much disdain the Beltway establishment has for the concerns of those in border states.
I'll stipulate that Milbank is probably correct about Jan Brewer's claims about decapitations, however he cranks it up a notch by sarcastically asking whether "dark-skinned foreigners are now severing the heads of fair-haired Americans" when in fact many victims of crimes committed by smugglers would be "dark-skinned foreigners"; Milbank doesn't have much concern for the victims of such crimes, regardless of their skin color.
Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world's No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.
The first has already been discussed here; see that for how Milbank is misleading his readers. His claim that the second is wrong is based on an article by the non-credible Politifact ; they made their decision based not on statistics but on the fact that there's either an absence of statistics or not all kidnappings are reported. The last two he's probably correct on.
Then, Dana Milbank shows what little respect he has for immigration enforcement and immigration laws in general:
This matters, because it means the entire premise of the Arizona immigration law is a fallacy. Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence. The scary claims of violence, in turn, explain why the American public supports the Arizona crackdown.
Whatever unspecified Arizona officials have said, there are plenty more reasons to reduce illegal immigration than simply border violence. There's also the fact that the Obama administration has in effect ceded control of part our territory to foreign criminals. And, even Milbank mentions the possibility that violent crime will spill over from Mexico into the U.S.; that's already happened in several instances but apparently he wants to wait until it gets worse and much harder to deal with before taking action. There's also the fact that Border Patrol agents have been discovered to have been in the pay of foreign criminals and the strong probability that local officials have also been compromised. And, of course, there's the impact of massive illegal immigration on our own high unemployment and the large amount of spending involved. Milbank delusionally thinks that if Arizona officials portrayed the border area in his corrupt, naive way then support for the law would drop.
Regarding the "mules" claim, Milbank says:
The Border Patrol's Tucson Sector has apprehended more than 170,000 undocumented immigrants since Oct. 1, but only about 1,100 drug prosecutions have been filed in Arizona in that time.
Shouldn't anyone who pretends to know anything about this issue realize that prosecutions don't necessarily reflect the number of actual crimes? See, for instance, this from March:
Two years ago, an understaffed U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson would have likely declined such a case - the office had a 500-pound threshold for marijuana cases... Not anymore - the threshold is history... Thanks to an influx of funds from the Justice Department's initiative to fight border-related crime, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson has nearly double the prosecutors it had three years ago. The office is prosecuting drug cases at a record clip - and going after people with smaller loads... The U.S. Attorney's Office in Tucson prosecuted 1,298 felony drug cases in 2009 - more than double the 521 prosecuted in 2008...
Even if "the threshold is history" there are only so many cases they can prosecute; if they had more funds they could no doubt increase it well above the 1,298. That doesn't mean that all illegal aliens are being used as "mules", just that Milbank is pawning off a misleading statistic.
The Milbank column, unfortunately, illustrates two major problems that supporters of the Arizona law have:
1. Those like Brewer need to bear in mind that everything they say will be picked apart by massive/illegal immigration supporters like Milbank and dozens of others who have a megaphone. They need to be very careful to only make statements that they can back up.
2. Many supporters of the law have donated to Arizona's legal defense fund, and some of the tea parties types have signed petitions in support of Arizona and so on. However, that's not enough. Things like the supposed low crime rates along the border are propaganda that those like Milbank use, yet few besides me are trying to strike against that propaganda and I didn't get any help that I know of with my discussion of the Associated Press article. If I had - if those trained in statistics had shown how the AP article is wrong - we might have prevented it being used not just by those like Milbank but also by Barack Obama. Simply standing around waving signs or signing petitions isn't enough: people also need to intellectually engage the other side and show how they're wrong. Unfortunately, the loudest opposition to the other side - the tea partiers and rightwing bloggers - are generally incapable of doing that.
UPDATE: So much for Milbank's conceit (link). Congressman Rob Bishop has confirmed that a beheading victim was found on an Arizona ranch in January and turned over to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office. One of Milbank's sources is the Arizona Guardian (link), the same source that earlier smeared Brewer over a misconstrued quote. They claim to have contacted the coroner in Santa Cruz County and claim to have been told that no such cases had been handled there. Please contact Milbank using this form with the link to the Examiner article and suggest that he be intellectually honest enough to look into this matter.
UPDATE 2: There's another anecdotal case linked from here. Other anecdotal cases are linked from here, and that site also points out that the Arizona Guardian only claims to have asked about "immigration-related" cases and not those related to drugs. Would the Guardian - which smeared Brewer as linked above - stoop even lower and deliberately only ask about one set of data when the other is equally important? If anyone calls the same counties in Arizona and has conflicting information please leave a comment.
When pressed to indicate if decapitated bodies had been found in Arizona, Senseman continued: "[Brewer is] referring, in general, to the increasing violence across the border."
Meanwhile, officials at six medical examiners' offices in Arizona -- Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Pinal and Maricopa -- confirmed that they had no records of decapitated bodies.
...[In the case in the first update above, the rancher] notified officials at the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office, who went to the ranch and took possession of the head.
Dr. Bruce Parks, who serves as the chief medical examiner for Pima and Santa Cruz counties, confirmed to FoxNews.com that the head was identified through DNA testing as that of 43-year-old Francisco Fuentes Dominguez, who was not a U.S. citizen. Parks said a cause of death was not determined, but there was no evidence of decapitation. Other "badly decomposed" parts of Dominguez's body were found nearby earlier in the year, he said.
Dave Weigel refers to "Paultards"; Drudge has "emotional problems", should "set himself on fire" - 06/24/10
It looks like someone in the Washington DC junior league has it in for Dave Weigel of the Washington Post, because someone on the private "Journolist" email list (started by Ezra Klein) has released some "interesting" emails that Weigel sent to the list. This is all very much disgustingly Inside The Beltway, but then again please take a look at his name's link, and note also that the post at his personal site where David Weigel wrote about me and then refused to print my comment is still on the first page of Google results for "Lonewacko" (this site's former domain name). So, let's stoop low but just not to his level.
From his not-so-abject apology (link), one of the more piquant emails includes:
"This would be a vastly better world to live in if Matt Drudge decided to handle his emotional problems more responsibly, and set himself on fire."
He apologizes to Drudge, but Drudge seems to have a looong memory so... David Weigle also dishes on Byron York (and apologizes at the link), suggesting that people avoid linking to the Washington Examiner and its "hot hot Byron York scoops". Which he means sarcastically.
And, he also uses the "-tard" slur which I try to avoid. Not because I'm politically correct or because I don't desperately want to use it, but because it's just the classy thing to do. Dave Weiggle thinks different:
"It's all very amusing to me. Two hundred screaming Ron Paul fanatics couldn't get their man into the Fox News New Hampshire GOP debate, but Fox News is pumping around the clock to get Paultard Tea Party people on TV."
To most people, what's above is all that matters. I'd prefer to discredit David Wygle by pointing out how he lies and has questionable journalistic ethics.
UPDATE: Weigel has resigned. For GOP hacks, that's not a good thing, as much as they might have wanted it. He seemed to actually have less influence at the WaPo than he had at his previous jobs. The fact that GOP hacks would celebrate him resigning because he wasn't "fair" enough to them says much about them: they'd prefer yet another RedState-style GOP sycophant rather than anything approaching adversarial journalism. The problem with Weigel was that he was only partially an adversarial journalist and against those on the relatively-powerless fringe; "helping The Power" was always his first concern rather than "fighting The Power". It also speaks to our current situation that he was pushed out because of this, but no one else wants to point out how he lied about the Obama citizenship issue. To the establishment, those lies are acceptable. Those in the "birthers" movement obviously weren't smart and focused enough to take him to task for those lies.
Lee Sherman of Mint cowardly gives in to illegal immigration supporters (Timothy Lee, Megan McArdle, Dave Weigel, Ezra Klein, Max Read) - 06/18/10
Over the past couple of days, the illegal immigration-supporting establishment's junior league flexed their muscles, trying to get the site Mint dot com to delete a post giving statistics about the negative impacts of immigration. And, they won, with Mint editor Lee Sherman (also of Intuit) completely caving with what must be one of the most cowardly apologies ever.
Obama administration considers suing Arizona over immigration law; preemption (+Kornblut, Markon wrong) - 04/28/10
Officials in the Obama administration are urging the extraordinary step of suing Arizona over its new immigration law, and the Justice Department is considering such an action to block the legislation from taking effect, government officials said Wednesday.
A key legal ground being considered, officials said, is the doctrine of "preemption" -- arguing that the state's law illegally intrudes on immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility...
The prospect of federal lawyers marching into court to challenge a state law would be most unusual, legal specialists said. Typically, the government files briefs or seeks to intervene in lawsuits filed by others against state statutes; federal officials said that could still happen in the Arizona case...
...Kris Kobach, who helped draft the legislation, said similar preemption arguments failed when Arizona passed a 2007 law that sanctioned employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. "They tried this on for size already, and it failed," said Kobach, a senior Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.
Needless to say, this would set off a political firestorm of a sort, pitting the illegal immigration-supporting establishment against the will of around 70% of a state. The great majority of conservatives and Republicans would be enraged as would a good portion of Democrats. The only ones on the Obama administration's side would be the usual suspects: those who seek to profit from illegal activity in one way or another. It's more likely that, instead of a full frontal assault, they'd help behind the scenes, such as providing assistance to the Mexican government-linked American Civil Liberties Union or the like.
Note also that Kornblut and Markon either lied or got wrong part of the Arizona law:
The Arizona law criminalizes illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing... The measure makes Arizona the first state to criminalize illegal immigration by defining it as trespassing, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In fact, that trespassing provision was struck from the bill as signed into law, and even the New York Times has already corrected a similarly false Linda Greenhouse OpEd.
Former George W Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson continues to be an attack toy poodle for the Bush family, this time offering "A test of Arizona's political character" in the Washington Post (link). I'm going to outsource most of this to Byron York (link) and fill in some of the gaps.
Gerson starts with no less than two hoary talking points in one paragraph:
[Chaos on the border] is an argument for effective border enforcement. It is also an argument for a guest-worker program that permits an orderly, regulated flow of temporary, migrant laborers, allowing border authorities to focus on more urgent crimes than those resulting from the desire to provide for one's family.
The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the "sole" basis for questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators? ...Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law, looked flustered when asked during a news conference the obvious question of how illegal immigrants might be identified... Yet Brewer has ordered Arizona police to be trained in the warning signs of illegality -- signs that she cannot describe. There is a reason no Arizona official has publicly detailed these standards -- because the descriptions would sound like racial stereotyping. And probably would be.
Bear in mind that the preceding appears in an article promoting border enforcement, which would be done by the Border Patrol and other agencies such as ICE. Those and similar groups have decades of experience at being able to tell illegal aliens from citizens and legal immigrants and visitors, and all without the legal armagedon that Gerson concern trolls about. No doubt there will be a few cases of local yahoo cops crossing the line, but with the proper guidelines and training - something that Brewer is developing - that can be mitigated.
Even before it was signed, President Obama criticized the Arizona law, which requires police to question anyone who appears to be in the country illegally... Under Arizona's new law, to take effect in 90 days, it will be a state crime to be in the country illegally, and legal immigrants will be required to carry paperwork proving their status. Arizona police will generally be required to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being undocumented -- a provision that critics argue will lead to widespread racial profiling, but that supporters insist will give authorities the flexibility to enforce existing immigration laws.
1. Their lie in the first sentence is the same as the CNN lie: police can question people about their immigration status if they suspect that they're here illegally, but only as part of a detention for something else. They aren't going to be running around asking people willy-nilly as Kornblut and Hsu would have you believe. See the last link for all the details.
2. And, just like CNN, they failed to note that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry their paperwork with them.
Just how closely their claims about the bill match those from CNN is certainly interesting; did they get those claims from CNN or from some other source?
As exhaustively detailed at the following link, the tea parties are a massive magnet for massive stupidity. They can't do anything right and the only reason they aren't little more than an embarrassing blip on U.S. political history is because their opponents are only marginally smarter than they are. Instead of trying to intellectually engage the partiers and show how they're wrong, those opponents have engaged in a long series of similarly childish activities, such as calling the partiers names or the like.
The latest example is the "Crash the Tea Party" group (crashtheteaparty.org) which is seeking infiltrators to try to make the partiers look bad by cranking their lunacy up a notch: bringing misspelled signs to rallies, advancing positions that are even more fringe, and so on. One problem with that is that it's lowering debate in the U.S. even more than the partiers are doing. Another problem is that it's difficult for even Pajamas Media to tell the difference between the real partiers and the infiltrators (pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=72); everything they say about infiltrators applies to some or many real partiers.
And, yet another problem with the "Crashers" is that it gives the real partiers cover: they can (and will) simply blame loony signs and loony ideas on the infiltrators. The person behind the "Crashers" (Jason Levin, twitter dot com/tpartycrasher, twitter dot com/xenex11) is in effect helping the partiers (he might even be secretly on their side). Even Dave Weigel can figure out that Levin is helping them (link).
Another twist and turn in this disturbing tale is that FreedomWorks - one of the string-pullers for the partiers - knows how they're vulnerable. At the Washington Post article, their Brendan Steinhauser says:
Steinhauser passed on a chance to critique the CrashtheParty strategy of discrediting tea partiers. "I'm not going to suggest what they'd do if they were smart," he said.
OK, so I'll do that:
1. Their opponents could send smart, high-minded people - i.e., not the Max Blumenthal types - to tea party events and meetings and have them engage those present - preferably their leaders - in debate about policy. Those smart people could show how their libertarian-leaning ideology leads to a raft of negative consequences. Videos of the debates could be uploaded to video sharing sites so that Americans who aren't that familiar with the partiers could see what they really support.
2. Their opponents could show why average Americans don't want to be useful idiots for Freedom Works, the Koch family, Grover Norquist, and all the others who are the real leaders of the tea parties. I believe that Rachel Maddow has discussed those who pull the strings on their movement, but based on what I've seen of her I don't think she would do it in a way that would convince those outside her small circle.
3. Their opponents could point out that the leaders of the partiers are lowering debate in the U.S.: instead of encouraging an open debate about policy, those leaders have encouraged their charges to throw tantrums, shout down politicians, and engage in other uncivil and ineffective actions.
4. Their opponents could point out that the leaders of the partiers have completely ignored immigration matters, and could suggest why that might be. Their opponents could use this issue to separate the bulk of the partiers from their corrupt DC and libertarian leaders.
[ADDED: the real anti-Tea Party movement is at that link]
For some reason, the Washington Post is a strong supporter of "solving" Haiti's problems by supporting massive immigration from that country. They've done that through at least one article, at least one guest editorial, and now an editorial.
However, what they support would make the situation in both the U.S. and Haiti worse: it would add workers to the U.S. labor market while millions are unemployed, it would help make Haiti even more dependent on the U.S., it would further braindrain that country, and it would make reforms in that country even less likely. See the entries on the Haiti page for the details, including shocking statistics that the Washington Post would make even worse.
In the editorial, they say among other things (link):
Most Haitians on these waiting lists (as part of chain migration), plus 19,000 who have applications in the pipeline, are going to wind up in the United States eventually. Speeding their resettlement here -- perhaps in monthly airlifts of 5,000 or 10,000 -- would help in critical ways. First, it would reduce the overwhelming numbers of destitute Haitians who will need to be housed, fed and cared for, in many cases by U.S. and international groups operating in Port-au-Prince and elsewhere. Second, it would provide an orderly procedure to relieve the pressure building in a country where almost no one currently has a means of exit. Keeping people bottled up in a place as wrecked as Haiti is a sure-fire way to make desperate people more desperate; it raises the risk of violence, instability and chaotic exodus. Third, it would increase the pool of Haitians working in the United States who, even before the quake, provided an estimated one-third of Haiti's gross domestic product by sending cash remittances to their families.
1. They're falsely assuming that we have to allow people to emigrate from Haiti; we have no such responsibility.
2. Their idea of a long-term solution to Haiti's problems is to basically allow as many people as possible to move to the U.S. That's an unworkable, childlike policy.
3. Those who aren't as incredibly corrupt as the Washington Post should be able to come up with a long-term vision for the country that would reduce the possibility of a "chaotic exodus", yet the WaPo isn't suggesting such a thing.
4. If someone's going to be "destitute", it's better in a low-cost economy like Haiti rather than bringing them to a high-cost economy. Given the unemployment situation, those who got jobs would do so at the expense of an American worker; those who didn't would get public assistance at a greater cost than in Haiti.
5. Remittances are like living off candy. If the WaPo weren't completely corrupt they'd suggest building sustainable industries in Haiti and developing a long-term plan to encourage the support in that country for such sustainability.