OPINION & EDITORIAL
Professor canceling class for political reasons out of line
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
- Rockin' around the what? (November 29, 2007)
- A downside to diversity, an upside to change (November 16, 2007)
- High schoolers can handle ads (November 8, 2007)
- Health providers must list prices (November 1, 2007)
- Employee policies in need of upgrade (October 25, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Ideology in classroom vastly overstated by right (February 8, 2006)
- Taking responsibility for your decisions (April 24, 2003)
- Professors not responsible for liberal leanings (February 6, 2002)
- Outbursts in class unacceptable (April 7, 2005)
- UW liberals often censor conservatives (February 13, 2007)
by Ryan Masse
Thursday, May 4, 2006
There are those who say universities are festering grounds for liberal propaganda, places where teachers regularly try to indoctrinate students — covertly or openly — with their radical leftist viewpoints.
I've always been a little skeptical of this theory. I don't deny that university professors, including my own, overwhelmingly lean to the left. But after spending four years in the political science department at a super-liberal university in a super-liberal city, I can honestly say that if my teachers have been trying to get me to renounce the free market, demand an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and worship at the feet of Ralph Nader, I haven't noticed it.
And not because I'm oblivious to such propaganda. Rather, the professors I've had the privilege of learning under are professionals who recognize that politics play no role in the classroom.
Perhaps I just wasn't looking in the right places, however.
I received an e-mail from an economics professor, one whom teaches a class in which I am enrolled this semester, late Sunday night alerting students that class on Monday morning would be canceled. The reason, as he put in the e-mail: "Tomorrow there will be a nationwide protest of mostly hispanic [sic] immigrants against some proposed legislation that would declare illegal immigrants criminals. I am not an "illegal" immigrant and my opinion in favor or against restrictions to immigration is irrelevant. The problem is that many hispanics [sic], myself included, feel that there's a substantial racist motivation behind the proposed bill, which is not only insensitive an [sic] cruel, but also insulting."
As I wrote in a column three weeks ago, I disagree with this opinion. Illegal immigrants flagrantly disregard the laws of our society, pose potential security risks and — while filling unpopular low-wage jobs — leach on governmental services without always paying their full share in taxes and civic responsibilities (jury duty, for instance).
But that's not the point here. The bottom line is that it is wholly inappropriate for a professor to voice his opinion on a matter that bears no relation to the class subject matter, much less cancel class because of it. And it cuts both ways: while I might personally find arguments for a hard-line stance on illegal immigration more palatable, it would be no more appropriate in the context of a professor communicating to his class.
The professor even seemed to realize as much, claiming his opinion on immigration is "irrelevant." Of course, irrelevance in his book apparently necessitates the accompanying claims that immigration legislation is "insensitive," "cruel" and "insulting."
He certainly is allowed that opinion, and if he wants to shout it from the top of his lungs and drown out the religicos on Library Mall, by all means he should. But don't do it in the classroom (or via a class e-mail list).
What's vital to remember is that professors at UW are paid to teach. They are state employees in charge of educating students at Wisconsin's flagship university. To cancel class for overtly political reasons is a blatant dereliction of duties. In doing so, a professor cheats not only the students who expect to learn from him, but also the taxpayers of Wisconsin who foot his salary.
Imagine, for instance, if a police officer assigned to Monday's immigration rally at the Capitol had decided the night before that, due to his ideological views, he wished to join in the protest, as opposed to enforcing the law at it. That wouldn't fly.
Sadly, this isn't the first time such an incident has occurred at this university. In 2003, UW women's studies lecturer Susan Pastor canceled her class due to an anti-Iraq War protest occurring the same day, leading former Badger Herald columnist Matt Modell to declare that "instructors have an obligation to teach the subjects they are being paid to teach — and no more." Mr. Modell's words ring just as true today.
Part of the problem is the lack of any concrete university policy on when and for what reasons professors may cancel regularly scheduled classes. While attempting to indoctrinate students on issues irrelevant to the class's subject material is generally frowned upon, there is no policy prohibiting teachers from canceling classes for political — or indeed, any — reason.
Rather, professors are merely charged with covering the material they set out to teach during the semester. If they can still cover the syllabus despite canceling a class here or there, so be it. In a sense, this is reasonable — outside academic opportunities, such as research, speaking engagements and the like, may sometimes pop up. In another, more accurate sense, though, there need to be clearer rules — starting with a prohibition on ever canceling, rescheduling or devoting class time for political purposes.
To be fair, Assistant Professor Juan Esteban Carranza didn't have to worry about such a policy earlier this week. And that's a shame, because actions like his are unfair to the vast majority of professors on this campus who maintain their professional integrity, uphold their job responsibilities and keep their personal politics where they belong — out of the classroom.
Ryan Masse (rmasse@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and economics.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 12:59am):
"Illegal immigrants flagrantly disregard the laws of our society, pose potential security risks and -- while filling unpopular low-wage jobs -- leach on governmental services without always paying their full share in taxes and civic responsibilities (jury duty, for instance)."
maybe illegal immigrants don't file income tax returns and serve on juries because they're not citizens, and in constant danger of deportation. The proposed Republican legislation would only worsen the consequences for "civic engagement," while allowing these people to become citizens could only help. btw, the prof. obviously cancelled class because he wished to attend himself, not to indoctrinate students. does a teaching position revoke ones right to assemble and petition the government?
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 5:49am):
"maybe illegal immigrants don't file income tax returns and serve on juries because they're not citizens, and in constant danger of deportation."
Actually, even legal immigrants can't serve on juries until they become citizens and register to vote. And people who were born here who don't register to vote also can't serve on juries. Maybe Ryan has something to say about these slackers shirking their civic duty, too.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 6:39am):
all the normal people in our class were happy when class was canceled...
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 7:44am):
While I would hardly say that Madison is "super-liberal" or that most professors actually "renounce the free market, demand an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and worship at the feet of Ralph Nader." Many are probably card-carrying Democrats and hold political views just like most other Americans, but seriously, if they're "radical" then so is half the country. (and the world for that matter) When you're far enough to the right, even John McCain seems like a "leftist" and moderate liberals seem like communist, even though they worship the free market as much as you do.
At U Miami, when their janitors went on strike, many faculty refused to cross the picket lines. Instead, many videotaped lectures for the students who didn't want workers to get paid more, and then held class off-campus. Essentially, they held class twice. This is not just because the faculty supported the workers; indeed, it is unfair to demand that people violate their conscience. But mainly, it is because the faculty supported it and the President actively spat in their faces. Moral of the story is, professors are people too, people who hold beliefs like the rest of us. But Ryan, you probably don't support unions (although you won't admit it) and would quickly label these profs as commies who are trying to push their communist beliefs on you.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 9:01am):
to the anonymous poster before me.
The Illegals don't pay taxes, or preform jury duty as legal citizens do, because they are ILLEGAL. If I steal a car are you going to stop me and give me the money to go back and buy it? Probably not.
And as far as the professor is concerned; if a professor email his or her students because they where going to cancel class because they thought it was unfair that unborn babies could be aborted and wanted to attend a protest, I have the feeling you would have a problem with that.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 9:43am):
There's a difference between "Immigrants" and "Illegal aliens." Much of the media is blurring the distinction. Legal immigrants enjoy much, if not all, the same rights as citizens. "Illegal aliens" are just that... illegal. They knowingly broke the laws of this country. They each made an individual decision.
As far as the professor. I think he had a right to cancel class, or even better, as a peer to substitute for him. However, it was inappropriate to use the class email to advocate a personal opinion on a contentious public issue.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 11:27am):
"while allowing these people to become citizens could only help"
I don't believe that line-jumping cheaters deserve to be rewarded for breaking the law.
It's just that simple.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 12:03pm):
the professor (and his students) have every right to participate in a protest that I personally agree with. However he had no right to editorialize in his email. He pulled a fox news by saying "My opinions don't matter and I'm not going to tell you what my opions are....but here are my opinions and this iswhy it matters."
I agree with the profs politics but not his methodology.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 12:27pm):
If the professor wished to attend the protest, and can cancel classes whenever he wishes, then their was no purpose in including a message to the students as to why the class was being cancelled. Instead he decided to deliver an opinion on immigration based on his feelings.
Subtle messages delivered over a long period of time are very effective and go unnoticed by the audience who from the age of 5 have heard, in the classroom, how important diversity is to the education process. This is why the children of Cuba belong to Castro just as the children of Germany belonged to Hitler. Now who exactly runs the public education system in the United States and refuses to allow parents to have choice? And who do those folks overwhelmingly give money to and vote for?
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 1:25pm):
All I can say Mr. Masse is that I forgive you on account of your youth and perhaps because you have no idea how important last Monday will be historically. There was a time when cancelling classes because of political issues was the rule rather than the exception. Perhaps you should rent the documentary the War at Home. . .
An alum and former writer for the Herald.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 1:36pm):
While I would hardly say that Madison is "super-liberal"...
you're kidding, right??
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 1:46pm):
"Now who exactly runs the public education system in the United States and refuses to allow parents to have choice? And who do those folks overwhelmingly give money to and vote for?"
The short answer would be the republicans, seeing as how they've had all of the power in the world for the last 6 years. If they couldn't change the system in that time then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 3:31pm):
this whole immigration movement is sooooo latino-centric. i mean, how racist are these mexicans? don't they want to unite with chinese immigrants who need politcal asylum or, irish or sudanese immigrants? do they only think of themselves? can i ask any more rhetorical questions about these law breaking, 'takers?'
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 4:58pm):
"because you have no idea how important last Monday will be historically"
RESIST LA RECONQUISTA!
MR BUSH, BUILD THAT WALL!
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 5:22pm):
"this whole immigration movement is sooooo latino-centric. i mean, how racist are these mexicans? don't they want to unite with chinese immigrants who need politcal asylum or, irish or sudanese immigrants? do they only think of themselves? can i ask any more rhetorical questions about these law breaking, 'takers?'"
The media has been potraying it this way, but the last march in chicago drew a large number polish, chinese, and a very large number of Irish immigrants. Most of the Irish pubs in the city have been helping to organize the Irish sect. Of course Lou Dobbs doesn't care if people wave Irish flags so you aren't going to hear about it.
Anonymous (May 4, 2006 @ 5:31pm):
"you're kidding, right??"
well as far as post-McCarthyist America goes, it's about as liberal as it gets. Compared to the rest of the world though? Cuba was more liberal under Batista than the campus.
Anonymous (May 5, 2006 @ 11:27am):
Bid fails to deport immigrant prisoners
Bill to ease crowding seen as a victim of demonstrations
- James Sterngold, SF Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, May 4, 2006
The state has struggled for years to reduce the soaring population in its overburdened prisons, but a proposal that could have forced as many as 20,000 inmates who are illegal immigrants to serve their sentences in their home countries has faltered over concerns it would be viewed as anti-immigrant.
***
The only good thing about getting stuck with the cost is they won't be sneaking back across the border to commit more crimes as soon.
Anonymous (May 5, 2006 @ 12:08pm):
"you're kidding, right??"
Seriously, what's with the neocons in this city and their victim complex. The media might portray this city as some bastion of liberal thought, but anyone around campus for the last national election would have seen just as many Bush posters on dorm windows as for Kerry. As a state school Madison servers as the hub for the entire state of Wisconsin and the state, especially those dwelling up north, tend to be of the conservative variety and this is represented in the student population. Sorry neocons, but you aren't the freedom fighting minority that you think you are.
Anonymous (May 5, 2006 @ 4:15pm):
Did the Prof also heed the call for a boycott of American goods in what was dubbed "A Day Without Gringos."
Ah, I wonder what the reaction would be to a call for a boycott of Mexican goods? I wonder what it could be called that would approximate the "Gringos" slur?
Anonymous (May 5, 2006 @ 4:22pm):
"would have seen just as many Bush posters on dorm windows as for Kerry"
Exxxxcellentttt
(if true).
Anonymous (May 5, 2006 @ 4:46pm):
In an attempt to break the Senate deadlock on immigration reform, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel and Florida Sen. Mel Martinez proposed a bill today that would crack down on recent illegal immigrants, yet offer a path to citizenship for those who violated U.S. immigration law before January 2001. Under the terms of the measure, roughly six million undocumented workers living in the U.S. for five years or more would be granted guest worker visas and then hired to work for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. With the INS, they would try to find and deport six million others who broke U.S. law more recently. Sen. Hagel, reportedly a Republican, said "putting our illegal amigos on the federal payroll, will help us keep track of them. As federal bureaucrats, their high pay and excellent government health insurance will keep them from becoming a burden on American taxpayers."
http://www.scrappleface.com/
Anonymous (May 6, 2006 @ 10:44am):
Cinco de Maya
One wonders: would Mexico be better off with the heirs of Maximilian, or was the victory of the Juaristas a benefit? Our neighbors to the South have their own views, of course. One also wonders if the Juaristas would have won absent US invocation of the Monroe Doctrine?
Anonymous (May 6, 2006 @ 11:55am):
Only in America can thousands of illegal immigrants protest quite legally.
Only in America can they demand things of a system that really doesn't owe them anything.
Only in America can the media go along with their pleas and say nothing of their demands.
Only in America can those who snuck into this country try to threaten this country.
Only in America can they try to stop commerce to force their way into our commerce.
Only in America can the kindness of our hearts blind us to the stupidity of our policies -- policies that support those who break the law and make a mockery of those who try to follow the law.
Only in America can we tell those who entered here by the books that there are special allowances made for those who do everything off the books. That it's OK to threaten and coerce, strike and shout, wave flags that aren't this country's and remind us of the great pride they have in other countries.
- Neil Cavuto
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 9:42am):
First I am a conservative, in the vein of Barry Goldwater. I am not a Neocon as the press only uses that to refer to conservative Jews and I am not a Jew. We do not veiw ourselves as a minority in the United States only a minority in Print and TV so called Journalism. So we frequently attack these forms of media just as the left attacks all the conservative voices on the radio. (Excepting NPR, which requires my Tax dollars to stay on the air, and Air America which requires donations from listeners to stay on the air) Of course campus lefties view all TV and Print media as conservative because they don't preach the same stupidity found in the Socialist Workers rag that is handed out likely with Student Seg Fee's by the UW Greens on campus.
We belly ache because we can. We belly ache because the supposed serious media is not capable of presenting all sides to an issue. Only the side that they agree with. As any student in journalism knows stories are framed, with the intent of bringing in the reader. With 80-90 of journalists supporting Clintong, or Gore or Kerry or even Nader, this conservative is not suprised to see stories framed with a liberal bias. At least on the Radio the talking heads admit their bias before telling you where they stand, with the exception of NPR which pretends to be unbiased like the TV and Print Media folks.
Now call me white, male and straight instead of a Neocon. I don't view any of them as insults but at least three of them are accurate.
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 11:01am):
Ok, then what is with the "white, male and straights" feeling so victimized when they have all of the power? And when has the media ever referred to neocons as jews? As far as I know Fox News is as WASPy as it gets and most people would consider them the standard for modern neoconia.
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 11:06am):
"With 80-90 of journalists supporting Clintong, or Gore or Kerry or even Nader, this conservative is not suprised to see stories framed with a liberal bias."
Where exactly did you get those stats from? Fox, or another similarly liberal media outlet?
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 12:39pm):
"Socialist Workers rag that is handed out likely with Student Seg Fee's by the UW Greens on campus."
That's funny. You don't know anything about Seg Fees, do you?
Anonymous (May 8, 2006 @ 11:45pm):
My main issue with this whole article is the uproar over a teacher cancelling class to take part in a protest that affects his own nationality. I don't see what is wrong with that. Jewish professors are not expected to teach on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. And yes, I know this is not a religious holiday, but if there was a civil rights rally in Madison I doubt if anyone would be mad at their African-American teacher for attending it. This is, essentially, a comparable situation.
And before someone spouts off about how they are fighting for something illegal, let me remind you that when Civil Rights rallies mattered most, much of what they were fighting for is illegal. "Yeah, but those things weren't fair?" Really? Well, a lot of people in the south really thought they were fair. You see, I don't think Mexicans necessarily think it is fair that, while many of them are rather poor and are willing to do the jobs none of us want to do for less, people want to keep kicking them out.
Anonymous (May 9, 2006 @ 3:16am):
those workes went through a lot and a lot of people went to that protest! this issue is hardly controversial. stop whining about pople who are good to others!
Anonymous (May 9, 2006 @ 10:01am):
Former member of the SSFC who tried to defund the UW Greens for being a political group. The guy handing out the Socialists Workers Rag at the Union back in '96 was one of two paid staff memebers for the Greens. So it may not have been Student dollars that paid for the rag but Student dollars gave him the time to stand outside the union with that idiotic paper.
As for Neocons, the term was coined to describe Jews like Paul Wolfowitz who found a home in the Republican party. Since that time blogging idiots on the left try to call all conservatives, now matter how long they have been a conservative, Neocons. This term apparently is a big hit with stupid hippies. I am not a new conservative. I understand the roots from Goldwater and placed my first Presidential vote for Ronald Reagan.
I am not a victim and neither are any of the other protected classes that the left panders to by telling them their failures are not their own faults. If you think being black or a women in America is tough then move to Europe and get a job. Don't hang out at the youth hostels our universities, go out an meet real people of Europe. The people who are not trying to have a sexual experience with some random American. You might discover how great you have it in this country. We are making progess in all areas of discrimination because economics demands it. Those market forces are not allowed the same sway in France.
Complaining at how awful the print and television news media is not an attempt to make myself into a victim. Rather it is an opportunity to crush the stupid ideas that socialist left in this country passes along to a willing medium. What the left hates is the freedom the internet brings to destroy lies like the CBS forged documents. (Which were to be used to destroy a President.) They also hate that they no longer control all media. When they put out a stupid factualy false story the bloggers and the radio folks dismantle their pathetic attempt to futher a pitiful ideology.
No victim, and just because I am in the majority doesn't mean I have to shut up and listen to a bunch of small minded liars.
Anonymous (May 9, 2006 @ 5:19pm):
Ah, what a nice little rant built on assumptions and stereotypes. When exactly has the right wing embraced the freedom and openess of the internet? All I am asking for is some proof, one little peice of evidence please, to support the so called "liberal media" theory. By calling something the "Liberal Media" you are creating a built in excuse. When something bad about the president is reported you are free to get on your soap box and scream "It is the liberal media attacking us again!", and when something positive or pro-con comes out then you can scream "Even the liberal media understands, why can't you!". The fact remains there is nothing liberal about our news media. No one is going to argue that the parade of tepid sitcoms on prime time is conservative, but when it comes to journalist and the news there is not one single fact that would support the liberal media allegation. The media is just lazy and whoever is in power pretty much gets away with murder, until Fox news decides that it is time to cover something, at which point it becomes news worthy. Note: unless you are a missing blonde or an oral loving president it is unlikely that fox will ever want to cover you.
Anonymous (May 10, 2006 @ 12:26am):
Actually, the person who believes they know what neocons are is completely wrong. It does not describe Jews who found a home in the conservative movement. You see, a true conservative believes in low taxes, low spending and smaller government across the board. Neocons, on the other hand, only believe in low taxes among those three categories. They are not opposed to big government or massive spending, and they are especially supportive of an interventionist military strategy. Also "conservatism" actually doesn't really mean anything about social values. Neither does "liberalism". The social values concerning abortion, religion, gay marriage, etc. have become connected to those BECAUSE those people who call themselves conservatives or liberals have attached to those ideologies. Honestly, the Republican party, in a lot of ways, is more technically libereal than the democratic party. The Republican party believes in massive spending, a massive bureaucracy and military and huge amounts of power entrusted in the president. The Democrats, on the other hand, believe in not running a deficit and, where possible, cutting back military spending and only intervening when necessary (or convenient if the President just got caught lying about having oral sex to the country and is about to be impeached for it).
In case you didn't notice, I don't like either party.
Anonymous (May 10, 2006 @ 11:50am):
Democrats believe in not running a deficit? That is hilarious. Who passed the budget deficits signed by Reagan in the 1980's? Not to mention Clintons deficit spending before the GOP gained control of congress with the Contract with America. Dems haven't heard of a social program that can't be fixed if the mean old Conservatives would just spend more money. Both parties spend to much money today because the mainstream media spins reductions in the rate of growth in a social program as a cut. With much fan fare about how conservatives want to starve, poison, or harm the children, the elderly or a variety of cuddle critters. So, GW lets Ted Kennedy write the education Bill and then gets lambasted for not spending enough money on education from those on the left. The only cuts the DNC ever wants is on the Military.
George Bush called a conservative not a Neocon why is that? The Neocon tag was attached to certain conservative speakers, writers, political aspirants who all happened to be Jewish. Hardly a coincedence.
As for your take on Conservative vs. Liberal. I agree, many conservatives are for growing the power of government in our lives just not the tax burden. While many liberals are for restricting government intrusion in our daily lives with the exception of our wallets. Neither side is interested in looking at what our founders intended.
Anonymous (May 10, 2006 @ 12:08pm):
"The Democrats, on the other hand, believe in not running a deficit"
ROFLMAO
One of the big lies of the world. The total debt of the US government was higher when Clinton left office than before he started. Any "surplus" you may have heard of was the result of creative accounting that would make a WorldCon or Enron accountant blush.
Anonymous (May 10, 2006 @ 8:26pm):
"One of the big lies of the world. The total debt of the US government was higher when Clinton left office than before he started. Any "surplus" you may have heard of was the result of creative accounting that would make a WorldCon or Enron accountant blush."
And where exactly did you get this factoid? Ann Coulter? The guy with the bowtie on CNN?
Fact, both Bush presidents ran huge deficits. Fact, at least as far as the numbers are concerned, Clinton didn't. Republicans now actually think running a deficit is BENEFICIAL.
Now, if you can give me some legitimate source that says that Clinton ran a huge debt and hid it with some funky accounting, I'll at least take a look at it. And no, a Republican thinktank doesn't count.
Here are two indisputable facts: Taxes were higher when Clinton was president. Military spending was both lower AND the government was making mad money off selling many of the bases they closed, many of which were in areas of prime real estate. Those two things would lead me to believe that a deficit would be lower.
Now, like I said, I don't like either side. I don't even like Clinton. He's gotten a fairly good wrap in large part because he has been followed by an absolute moron, but let's be honest about something. He made himself completely ineffectual for the last two and a half years of his presidency because he couldn't keep his zipper up. And anytime that Ted Kennedy is attached to any bill, it's typically a good idea to take a pass on it. Bush's education policy as whole (No Child Left Behind, his idea of sex education, etc.) is absolutely terrible, though. And whether he is the one behind the bills or not, guess what, he's the president. If he throws his support behind something, he gets the blame.
Anonymous (May 11, 2006 @ 8:25am):
The USA has a two party system. There's the STUPID Party and then there's the EVIL Party.
The STUPID Party pushes for stupid laws while the EVIL Party passes evil laws.
When they work together in the spirit of cooperation and bi-partisanship they pass stupid evil laws. Works out great for them since they exempt themselves from the laws while voting themselves good pay and extravagant benefits.
Anonymous (May 11, 2006 @ 12:43pm):
MR BUSH, BUILD THAT WALL!
Why can't 10 million line-jumping, cheating law-breaking criminals be deported? Don't have to beat, rape and kill them like the Mexicans would do - just round them up and deport them.
***
He ended up in Greenwich Hospital because the one in the town where he'd settled, the neighboring and much less well-to-do Port Chester, had shut down after going bankrupt. That hospital had cared for a large number of patients just like him: no insurance, no English, no papers. When a hospital serving such a demographic goes bankrupt, it leaves a needy population to seek free care elsewhere, passing on the same risk of financial distress to neighboring hospitals, like propagation of an infectious disease.
Why should our hospitals have to eat the cost of disease brought in by undocumented workers? I found out that his bill totaled $200,000. This excludes professional fees, meaning everything that would have been billed separately by the many physicians treating him over 10 weeks (including what I'd have charged for surgery). We all worked for him free.
How many other diseases are being brought in by how many other undocumented and unexamined workers? Somehow, here, a social worker was able to track down the friends and relatives who came to the U.S. with this patient. They all tested positive for TB, and were all working behind the scenes in local restaurants.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008362
Anonymous (May 12, 2006 @ 9:57am):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060512/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_immigration_2
Bush is for rewarding millions of illegal immigrants for their crimes.
Anonymous (May 12, 2006 @ 2:20pm):
We Neocons will bury you. We have won and will continue to win because we know RealPolitik, and you sniveling liberals and old time conservatives are just plain losers waddling around in the past. Ha ha ha! George is the new god!
Anonymous (May 13, 2006 @ 10:24am):
The debt NEVER went down while Clinton was in office - I doubt it ever will.
The Debt To the Penny
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Anonymous (May 13, 2006 @ 10:50am):
If "jobs Americans won't do" is a central part of Bush's address his approval ratings may be in the single digits Tuesday morning. I honestly do not understand where our political class has gotten the idea that calling the average american lazy and worthless is good political strategy. Do they truly think that little of us? Iraq has been a hard ( and in my opinion a worthwhile) job, should only illegals be allowed to that? Our previous leaders thought Americans could do anything they set their mind to. They asked big things of us and we did them, better than any other nation on earth has ever done them. These bozos think we can't get off the couch to make our own freaking dinner. I'm beginning to think they despise us, I truly am. And I'll be damned if I waste my vote on someone that thinks that little of me.
Anonymous (May 13, 2006 @ 11:37am):
Read what a neocon has to say:
"On matters of culture, I believe as everybody else here does that our immigration policy makes no sense if it is not directed at the process of turning non-Americans into Americans through the instruction of English, knowledge of civics and American history, and helping to instill a sense of pride and commitment to the country."
***
"The potential for self-destruction is terrifying. The potential for grave national harm is worse. Please, you guys, pull back from the edge."
John Podhoretz
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhkYjBiMTE4ZDk5NmI3YmMxOTI3MmQyYjMwYzAwMTc=
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 8:21am):
If it's good enough for Mexico then the USA should also be able to project itself from invasion.
Analysts estimate that thousands of troops have been sent south to Chiapas and Oaxaca states. Captured migrants are now flown back to their countries of origin, rather than dumped in Guatemala.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0824/p1s3-woam.html
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 9:59am):
Tthe Goths wanted nothing more than to be part of the Roman Empire and its wealth, they didn't intend to invade and conquer they just wanted in, and they came not in armies and hordes but in tribes a few hundred a day... Eventually Theodoric the Goth deposed the last Roman Emperor of the West. They were Arian heretics but wanted to control the Church even so. Perhaps there are some lessons in there. Perhaps not.
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 2:09pm):
NO AMNESTY!
NO REWARD FOR LINE JUMPING CRIMINALS!
Comprehensive immigration reform promises that people already in the United States illegally can apply for citizenship, but requires them to "go to the back of the line." But a key question is, the back of which line? The reform bill before the Senate doesn't require illegal immigrants to go back home--to, say, Hong Kong, to the end of the 10-to-15-year line there--to get a green card. Instead, it allows the current illegals to receive their green card immediately--having, in effect, jumped the line at the U.S. consulate abroad. Then, like other green card holders, they will be able to work here, collect government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid, and travel as freely as if they had a U.S. passport.
The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.
If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally.
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 8:16pm):
You think that low skill, under-educated US citizens have trouble finding work now - JUST WAIT!
***
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., argued that aside from the current number of illegals living in the Untied States, the 617-page Senate bill, as it stands now, "would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the United States over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66 percent of the total current population of the United States."
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 8:21pm):
Not PC, but true anyway.
The Latinos coming into America are heavily Indian and uneducated. Mexican ophthalmologists do not swim the river. Mexicans who can make a decent living do not want to live in the United States. Thus the US gets the losers, the second-grade educations, people who on average have neither the intellect nor the urge to study.
Everyone says, "But the Hispanics work hard." They do indeed, in the first generation. Many people in fields such as construction have told me that the Latinos are the backbone of their operations, that blacks don't want to work, have attitudes, show up if they feel like it and quit without warning. The Latinos work, now. Their children do terribly in school, however, drop out, and lose the desire to work. Then they join gangs.
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 9:27pm):
Thoughts on the President's Speech
Not enough enforcement, and not quick enough.
The United States is being invaded. It is not a violation of the posse comitatus act to use the military to repel invasions.
We do not need more people with no skills, no education, and who do not speak English, to come in to compete for entry level jobs. A "Guest Worker" program should at least require some skills and the ability to speak English.
Six thousand National Guards will not be enough.
If there is also funding and authority for local and state police to apprehend, incarcerate, and at leisure deport illegals apprehended in the US -- and particularly those apprehended in commission of a crime -- then there would be some progress. Bounties might help as well.
But mostly stop the flow: we are being invaded. The Army is supposed to protect us from invasion. Stop the flow, then begin to deal with those illegally here. Most will volunteer to leave: they will commit crimes, and since they are here illegally, any crime will be enough to put them on the deportation list. With the border under control they won't be back quickly.
Anonymous (May 15, 2006 @ 9:36pm):
The Melting Pot works only when given a chance.
The Imperial Courts have decreed that requiring English is unconstitutional and ballots have to b e distributed in Hmong and Spanish and such, and most government services can't be withheld from illegal immigrants, and multi-culturalism is more important than the Melting Pot. The result will be internal gang warfare, possibly within my lifetime, certainly within most of yours.
We have sown the wind, and we sow it still.
Anonymous (May 16, 2006 @ 8:27am):
Porous borders are the result of uncontrolled immigration as much as its cause. You cannot control the borders, however many patrols you hire or fences you build, if you grant an effective pardon to anyone who gets 100 miles inland.
Besides, a guest-worker program that admits as many people as employers are willing to hire (at sweatshop wages Americans won't accept) makes extra border security pointless. If everyone can come in legally, there won't be any illegals crossing the desert or swimming the river.
Anonymous (May 17, 2006 @ 9:16am):
A nation has the right to secure and patrol its own borders. Liberals should concede that Mexican illegal immigrants do not have greater rights to entry than legal emigrants from the Punjab, the Philippines or South Korea who queue up for years waiting for proper documentation.
Anonymous (May 18, 2006 @ 9:54am):
Who wants to join my pool on what long standing issue suddenly becomes "THE" (devisive) issue in the 2008 elections? My guess is Gay Illegals, combining the best of the right's favorite hated worlds. If not that then it will certainly be Gay Drivers Liscenses. I don't want them gaying up my streets.
Anonymous (May 18, 2006 @ 3:28pm):
It is GOD's will that all these Catholic Mexicans and Central Americans come up north to battle all the wacko and hateful fundamentalist "Christians" infesting this once great country.
Anonymous (May 18, 2006 @ 6:38pm):
Bush is the primary champion of the illegals and their quest to make line-jumping pay off.
Doesn't that mean that all the good folk who hate McChimpy Bushitler must now be against amnesty?
Anonymous (May 21, 2006 @ 5:56pm):
I guess Bush is a idiot. He's the biggest advocate of amnesty for illegals, losing the support of his "base", and yet he's still pilloried by the liberals.
Doncha just love all the "man in the street" stuff where Bush is considered an enemy of the poor immigrants?
All he's have to do is BUILD THAT WALL and his polls would go up. MAybe he's just doing what he thinks is right without regard to polls - what a moron.
***
Bush's enforcement provisions were advertised as an attempt to appease conservatives. This is odd. Are conservatives the only ones who think that unlimited, unregulated immigration is a detriment to the republic? Do liberals really believe in a de facto policy that depresses the wages of the poorest and most desperate Americans, African Americans most prominently among them? Do liberals believe that the number, social class, education level, background and country of origin of immigrants -- the kinds of decisions every democratic country makes for itself -- should be taken out of the hands of the American citizenry and left to the immigrants themselves and, in particular, to those most willing to break the very immigration regulations the American people have decided upon democratically?
And is it just conservatives who think the United States ought not be gratuitously squandering one of its greatest assets -- its magnetic attraction to would-be immigrants around the world? There are tens of millions of people who want to leave their homes and come to America. We essentially have an NFL draft in which the United States has the first, oh, million or so draft picks. Rather than exercising those picks, i.e., choosing by whatever criteria we want -- such as education, enterprise, technical skills and creativity -- we admit the tiniest fraction of the best and brightest and permit millions of the unskilled to pour in instead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/18/AR2006051801774.html
Anonymous (May 22, 2006 @ 12:23pm):
If American policy-makers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.
Anonymous (May 22, 2006 @ 2:54pm):
STOP MAKING SENSE! The world is irrational, and so, ultimately, is everything in it. But don't worry ... a pandemic or two will do wonders to cure this planet of its humanoid mutants.
Anonymous (May 23, 2006 @ 7:50pm):
If paying taxes, speaking English and working are 'a meaningful penalty' for entering the country illegally, evading taxes and using forged documents then what am /I/ being penalized for?
Even paying their back taxes is no "meaningful penalty" for all the laws they have broken. Heck, YOU (or any of us) avoid taxes for 8-10 years and see what kinds of penalties the IRS can levy... And I'll bet it wouldn't be just the amount of back taxes alone. Can anyone say, "Be living in a cardboard box under the bridge in no time"?
Anonymous (May 29, 2006 @ 12:48am):
As tough as the United States can be for workers who slip in from south of the border, Mexico is in a poor position to criticize. The problem goes far beyond the predatory gantlet of thugs and crooked cops facing defenseless transients like Moisés. There's ample precedent in Mexico for just about everything the United States is--or isn't--doing. Calling out the military? Mexicans may hate the new U.S. plan to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops on the border, but five years ago they cheered President Vicente Fox for sending thousands of Mexican soldiers to crack down on their southern frontier. Tougher laws? Hispanic-rights groups are enraged over U.S. efforts to criminalize undocumented aliens--yet since 1974, sneaking into Mexico has been punishable by up to two years in prison. Foot-dragging on amnesty? Fox has spent the past five years urging the United States to upgrade the status of millions of illegals from Mexico. Meanwhile, his own government has given legal status to only 15,000 foreigners without papers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13006798/site/newsweek/
Anonymous (June 8, 2006 @ 3:38pm):
This comment is number 60 - a nice, even number in an odd world!
