This is riposter's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following riposter's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
riposter
Recent Activity
Illegal alien would be the preferable term, reflecting its use in law, if it weren't deprecated by the lack of use of its complementary term, legal alien. Alien encompasses those who are immigrants, legal or illegal, as well as those from other countries not intending to immigrate, who can also be here legally or not. But undocumented is definitely a term associated with advocacy for illegal immigrants. That those working in the Times choose to use interchangeably with illegal immigrant accurate reflects the advocacy for illegal immigration that is so pervasive in the paper. Of course when it comes to misnomers, "Readers Representative" is one, used by newspapers for the apologists they employ. If newspapers actually cared about having themselves held to ethical standards in their reporting and editing, then they would subject themselves to outside, independent evaluations of their ethical performance.
1 reply
If by the Feds you mean the politically appointed administration shills, this isn't news. They are likely as pro-illegal immigration as Obama, who would give amnesty in a minute if he could get away with it politically. But the rank and file in the enforcement agency are more like and respect the views of most Americans who oppose illegal immigration and think enforcing the laws necessary for that end is worthwhile. Of course these political appointees who took oaths to uphold the laws of the country lied through their teeth, having just about as much respect for the truth as those who work at the LA Times.
1 reply
"Although I do not support illegal immigration or the hiring of undocumented workers..." Yeah, right. It is so disingenuous when pro-illegal immigration advocates like Reyes and the LA Times complain about the failure of E-verify to prevent some employment of illegal immigrants as an excuse not to use a system that prevents some of that employment. Of course any system that simply relies on the accuracy of it's databases while failing to use tools to detect those falsely present themselves as the real people in the system will fail in that regard. From the cited study: http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/E-Verify/E-Verify/Final%20E-Verify%20Report%2012-16-09_2.pdf "The inaccuracy rate for unauthorized workers is the percentage of workers without employment authorization found to be employment authorized. These inaccuracies are primarily due to identity fraud that occurs when workers without employment authorization provide employers with identity information for work-authorized persons." But I'm also curious over just how the determination was made as to the rate of erroneous authorization of ineligible employees. Accuracy rates for Tenative Non-confirmations of eligible workers are knowable because those erroneously identified can and probably will correct that. But when someone is wrongly given an authorization to work, what process would lead to the discovery of that other than some identity-fraud investigation because of a complaint by its victim? While the Supreme Court rightly said that those who just use made up identities shouldn't be prosecuted for identity fraud, those who steal the real identities of legal workers should be vigorously prosecuted. And much of it could be detected through the applications of algorithms to existing databases.
1 reply
--Sandra Hernandez of the LA Times, which party do the 43 who voted for this belong to? How about the 22 who voted against? Not running fingerprints through the system means foregoing the federal criminal database information also. So someone not on the record here as having been convicted of a crime could have been convicted of or wanted for a heinous crime elsewhere, get bail and skip town.
1 reply
The price needed to get good teachers can only be determined in a market where teachers are selected, retained and paid by the value they add to the educational mission. The current system, and likely this movie, is the anti-thesis of such a market and outcome-based determination. For many good teachers, would be teachers and teachers that left the business, it is the lack of focus on the educational mission and the intense politics, union power games and bureaucracy that turns them off. People's satisfaction with their employment is not just a function of compensation, but is also highly correlated with atmosphere created by the organization, their co-workers and their supervisors, as well as the pride in the work product. I know teachers who are profoundly frustrated and offended at a system that is really more about the adult government employees than the education of children.
Toggle Commented May 10, 2011 on What to pay an 'American Teacher' at Opinion L.A.
1 reply
I'd like to know why the moderator didn't post my comment from 10 am yesterday. Here it is again: This immigration lawyer and advocate for illegal immigrants had been chair of the committee of jurisdiction on the issue in the House before Republicans took over. This is more of the same from another Democrat among the many that promote the violation of the country's immigration laws, the laws of the country she took an oath to uphold. The open border radicals argue against state and local immigration discretion unless that discretion is in the service of their agenda. The reality is that, of those who are identified by the long-overdue connection of the established IDENT system to DHS databases, a large fraction are neither taken into custody by ICE nor deported when they are. So what's the message that's delivered when identified illegal immigrants in the custody of government for reasons other that their immigration violations are let go to remain in the country illegally? That's a question you won't see broached by the illegal immigration advocates at the LA Times, soul mates of Lofgren.
1 reply
Why should any person who has been arrested and is in custody and that have been identified as illegal immigrant be let go? The premise is that being an illegal immigrant is perfectly ok absent the commission of a crime deemed serious enough by the people who believe illegal immigration is ok, like those who work at this newspaper. The reality is that thousand of identified illegal immigrants in custody for non-immigration-related offense are simply let go. It would be nice if there was any journalistic integrity left in the industry where the number of illegal immigrants identified by Secured Communities but simply let go was reported instead of the number that "had minor or no criminal records." By the way some people who have committed crimes but haven't yet bet tried for those crime have no criminal records yet. Statistics regarding the charged crime are relevant too. Some of the deported are those who have absconded from ongoing immigration processes, or absconded after being adjudicated in the immigration process resulting in orders to leave the country. Finally big city police chief organization have corrupt relationships with left-wing, big-government political machines that dominate those cities. You can see a high correlation regarding their statements on this subject and the politics of those who employ them.
1 reply
Chiang's database is a wonderful tool for allowing government transparency.
1 reply
An industry of leftists avoiding paying for the kind of government they advocate for; hypocrites.
1 reply
How about showing some real concern for the students? If you can't do the job with the money available, stand aside and allow others to do it. But then again, it's not the kid but the adult government employees that really matter.
1 reply
I'm against racial and ethnic politics of all kinds but doing so by self identifying as nazis is the work of some very twisted minds.
1 reply
I counted 4 views: 3 from the establishment that is responsible for illegal immigrants and another one that somehow excluded employment eligibility from his "plan" to stop illegal immigration. The lines around illegal immigration have never been simply between the parties or conservative versus liberal. In fact you see unholy coalitions of people who don't share hardly anything on their agendas except the sanction and promotion of illegal immigration. What you don't see in this newspaper is representation of those who have principled opposition to illegal immigration and can articulate coherently on the subject. That's no accident, but it's wrong. Do the people at the LA Times have no shame?
1 reply
The real bailout was from the federal reserve, the transfer of hundreds of billions from savers who earn almost nothing on their savings, and the still growing cost of bailing out Fannie and Freddie bondholders.
1 reply
Mitchell- Here's another blog post about the distinction. http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/01/09/the-difference-between-purveyor-symbols-and-crosshairs/ However I don't it matters. Linking the use of targeting symbols in a political context, whatever their origin, is not advocacy of violence.
1 reply
“Of course, Palin had nothing to do with Saturday's horrific turn of events,” but rather than focus those who did go after her for just that, asserting blame for the shooting and exploiting this horrible event for their own political purposes, the author of this blog post finds Palin's response to that kind scurrilous accusations as what's problematic. The metaphorical reference to blood libel was obviously just that, a metaphor, just as targeting political opponent is a metaphor. The former is no more a reference to the ritual use of blood of children than the targets were a call to assassination. As far as Klein, he represents those liberals talking out of both side of their mouths mouth. He was on Charlie Rose on this topic as the moderate voice relative to Jon Meacham, but it's still double-speak. Just as this blog post author does, instead of focusing on those casting scurrilous charges, he in effect is saying Palin should give them credence by apologizing for the possibility of the supposed guilt asserted by her accusers. This is all pretty shameful, except that so many people appear to be shameless.
1 reply
We can all rest safely knowing that those wanting to commit mass murders won't be doing so because they won't want to violate concealed carry laws. Thank you Sen. Boxer.
1 reply
Welcome to sinecure city.
1 reply
“The court observed that the state law also benefits U.S. citizens who reside in other states but attend and graduate from high school in California.” However the qualifying language of AB540 was structured, the intent of those who passed this law was to benefit illegal immigrants. That their intent was concealed in a construct of neutral language that also makes it available to a minority of other students who aren't illegal immigrants doesn't change that fact. No honest person could believe that, absent the illegal immigrants students, the Democrats who passed this would have done so that families that have moved to other states after their children attended high school and graduated in California could have in-state tuition. The same can be said about SB 1460, passed by Democrats this year but vetoed, that would have extended to AB540 students the access to financial aid.
1 reply
Richard Long: “I do not know why these GOP hardliners about immigration thinks that they will win without the support of the Latino votes.” By hardliners do mean actually opposing illegal immigration, as in being willing to effectively enforce the laws against it and not rewarding people for breaking our immigration laws, the kind of things required if people ever hope to control it? Maybe the LA Times will hire you as you seem to meet the most fundamental requirement for working at the paper. The reality is the the Latino population intimately connected to illegal immigration probably won't support candidates that don't also support illegal immigration. But encouraging the growth of that population is a path to the GOP's demographic death and robs them of the potential support of all the voters who are against illegal immigration and could be willing to vote for their party's candidates.
1 reply
You can watch the hearing here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/296345-1 United States v. State of Arizona Again listen to judge ask why Congress can't address the Arizona Law directly if it objects at just past 40 minutes into the hearing. If you care about illegal immigration, you need to demand an open process the will identify the politicians who are encouraging it and have lied consistently to the citizens of this country about being against illegal immigration. I want Congress to further authorize states to help in immigration enforcements, which would be a massive and quick force multiplier, and I want Congress to mandate and verify that the administration begin enforcing the laws effectively. I want it to mandate the use of E-verify instead of Obama's legal alignment with open-border groups to fight states ability to require E-verify's use, strengthen that system and require that employers cease employing those who don't resolve their work identities that don't match federal records. Obama killed a pending rule that would have required the later. It's simply outrageous that while millions of legal workers remain unemployed, the administration turns a blind eye to the on-the-books employment of millions of illegal immigrants.
1 reply
I was gratified to see the judge ask the question that supports an argument I've been making for months. He asked if Congress is not capable of saying no. Like I've been arguing if the Congress doesn't want Arizona doing what it's doing, it should simply pass a law to make that clear. Why should we have lawyers argue of what past Congresses meant when the current Congress can simply make its statutory law intent absolutely clear? The virtue in this is not only to take it out of the realm of obscure legal arguments but the far greater virtue in a representative democracy of transparency concerning the actions of the people who are supposed to be representing us. While it would have been ideal is to have had them vote on it a month ago so that people could have gone to the polls and decided who best represents their beliefs about illegal immigration, it still is worthwhile. I now want them to postpone any vote till January so that people already thrown out can't vote. But after that let's have the new Congress go on record. The citizens of this country deserve to be able to know who to hold accountable in government for the deliberate non-enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.
1 reply
Extending the tax benefits equally would simply make the government's treatment of people regarding the purchase health insurance the same. Treating citizen's equally under the tax laws offends these people why? These usual suspects on the left complain of "discriminatory" insurance coverage (as if underwriting isn't inherently a process of discrimination in order to determine the right price for a risk) but somehow don't seem to mind the government discriminating against those who don't get their insurance through their employers. There's no doubt that tax uniformity by itself would leave all kinds of problems with our system in place. But that's no reason to criticize it. To say that it would do little improve the functioning of insurance markets misses the point that simple fairness shouldn't be held hostage to other ends. If we have a bad system, it is only made worse to the extent that our government treats people unfairly. I'm not surprise Fiorina doesn't provide much details. I can't see where political benefit in that would be given that the level of public understanding of health insurance markets is so poor. Had we has a responsible media, educating the public of the inevitable trade offs in insurance reform would have been a priority. Instead they mostly treated health care reform as a political sporting event. Even this group doesn't acknowledge the costs of the benefits they tout of the new law. Perhaps because they are on a political campaign of their own.
1 reply
How much coal is this state with a greenhouse gas law exporting?
1 reply
And I have a few questions for Steve and his open-border elite friends. Why does the only employment of illegal immigrants that matters is that by candidates and nominees for cabinet jobs, who usually happen to be of different ideologies from those who complain loudest about them hiring illegals? Why will Whitman's receipt of a no-match letter get more coverage by the media than Obama's killing of a pending Bush-originated rule that would have required employers to eventually cease employment of those who didn't resolve the records issue with the Social Security Administration and, by extension, how the existing rules around no-match letters are part of the what amounts to an invitation for the employment of illegals? Whitman was always dishonest about illegal immigration, advocating amnesty a year ago before Poizner chose to make illegal immigration an issue. But the issue for the media isn't the credibility of a candidate's enforcement position, it's that any enforcement issue is in opposition to their agenda. The mass of California citizens who oppose illegal immigration have virtually no representation in the media and that effectively removes the opportunity to have an honest debate on policy and hold the ubiquitously dishonest on this issue politicians accountable, that is to have a government that represents them.
1 reply
People can believe in global warming being caused by CO2 and still support Prop 23. Does this reporter think that the success or failure of Prop 23 and whether there is a delay in the implementation of AB32 is going to make a big difference in global warming? That's somehow implicit in this kind of reporting and the refusal to honestly question whether that premise is correct indicates the lack of honest journalism, if you'll excuse what ought to be considered redundant terminology.
1 reply