My Quiet Life

Kleinheider opines to the Claudia Nunez case:

You show me an illegal immigrant facing deportation and I'll show you sad story. They all have one and they should all go back to the country of their origin. We have established rules. We need to hold to them. Not just when they plow into someone mother on Briley Parkway -- all the time.

Last night, as we sat around discussing the case, the sentiment seemed to be "who could possibly argue for splitting this family and deporting Claudia?" I knew that when the argument was made, it would be via the "rule of law" argument. I expected it to be Coble, though, and not Kleinheider. So, I'll open by quoting Katherine, who says it well enough:

While I support the rule of law, I also believe that justice untempered by mercy is no justice at all.

The ridiculousness of the Nunez case provides two, distinct opportunities:

• To shed some light on the ridiculousness of our current immigration law (which is only getting worse), and provide the impetus for change.
• To prevent a terrible, preventable, tragedy from befalling Claudia Nunez and her family.

But before I get to that, let me fisk the hell out of AC's post:

Because compassion is part of the problem. It is the compassion of us all that the business community counts on to continue to get their cheap labor.

No. Nice red herring, but no. "Compassion" is not the problem. It's not "compassion" that provides cheap labor. The "cheap" labor is provided by one main thing: restrictive immigration policy that is not enforced, resulting in a large non-legal population that enters the workforce without access to labor law and other forms or legal recourse for abuse. Open up our economic borders, legitimize those that are already here (feel free to fine them, to preserve the "rule of law"), and this problem goes away. This has nothing to do with compassion. That's pure economics.

It is compassion that Democrats count on to get their cheap votes. There are all sorts interests clamoring for compassion. They want stories like these to get out so that we shall remain weak.

Right. Uhh.. If we let this mother remain in the country to raise her kids, we'll be weak. Got it.

You want compassion? Have compassion for the natives. Have compassion for those whose health care costs have risen do to immigrants using the emergency room as their primary care physician. Have compassion for those whose jobs have been lost and wages depressed.

False dichotomy here. I do weep for those affected adversely by immigration, and I assure you, it works both ways. This is what happens when you have a stratified labor market with an underprivileged, exploited underclass of workers. And, as far as "immigrants using the emergency room as their primary care physician", that statement needs to be stricken from the post. That's not an immigration problem. That's an American problem. Illegal immigrants are not the only ones being screwed by a lack of preventative health care. But hey, why fix our country's failed markets when we can blame it on the Mexicans instead?

The need for compassion is overstated. We take in more legal immigrants than any country in the world per capita and we have been quite lax for some time on illegal immigration. We have been about as compassionate as we can gonna get.

Evidence please. Specifically: evidence that demonstrates that increased immigration is an economic problem (absent restrictive, interventionist immigration law as exists in our country). Immigration is not a problem. Immigration is economics in action -- it's the movement of labor from one place to another. We should welcome it.

This argument of blind adherence to the "rule of law" ignores the fact that we as a society make laws. We don't live in a theocracy and our laws aren't pre-ordained. We have the power to isolate and purge injustice from our society wherever it's found -- including in our own law. Especially in our own law. Arguing "because it's illegal" as a defense of any action is an exercise in circular logic that deflects any real, rational reasoning on the issue. Blind defense of authority is a cowardly act.

A quick update, here:

It's our understanding that the authority to defer deportation for Claudia Nunez lies with Stella Jarina, the district director of the New Orleans field office of the USCIS.

We have created a petition, addressed to Stella Jarina, imploring her to reconsider the case. Please give it a look, and hopefully, your signature!

We went as Nemesis-boy for Halloween. Would you like to meet us?

UPDATE: There is now a website.

When Sarcastro, Aunt B, and I all agree on something, you know it's something you can really get behind.

Meet Claudia Nunez and her family. Claudia is in the process of deportation from Nashville back to El Salvador. Despite residing in the country for years. Despite her 3 year old daughter and her 4 year old daughter -- both U.S. citizens by birth. Despite her husband, also a legal resident. Despite all this, she's being sent back to El Salvador, where, beyond being stripped of her family, she'll have to deal with these guys. What family of four did she murder, you ask? Well, actually, she just overstayed her visa (which, incidentally, is not a crime).

I am not going to re-hash the whole story, since Sarcastro and Aunt B have already done a good job on that. But I will be talking about it. A lot. I'll probably use a graph. You know how I do. But you'll be hearing a lot about this case from others, as well. This is a test case for a lot of things: our tolerance for inflexible bureaucracy; our tolerance for counterproductive, exploitive immigration law; our, well, intolerance and xenophobic hysteria. It's a test case for how far we've strayed from the inscription at the base of the statue of liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

At least, I think that's what it says. Maybe it's "Don't let the golden door hit your ass on the way out." I forget.

More to come on this..

UPDATE: See Sean Braisted and John H on this as well.

Donald Sensing on Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali:

The sheik has since apologized for the remarks, which were assailed by right-thinking Ausssies from Prime Minister Howard on down. “Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner Miss Pru Goward said there could be no backtracking over the comments. ‘He could be guilty of incitement to the crime of rape and should be deported,’ she said. ” Read the comments at the bottom of the story; they’s a trip, including a Briton who asks, reasonably enough, just where is the feminists’ outrage?

I am really tired of the "Where is the __________'s outrage on this?" blogging device. I think Glenn Reynolds might be guilty of being the protege for this retarded little rhetorical move. Where's the outrage? I don't know, why don't you tell us where it's not? Is Donald Sensing out there poring over the feminist blogging community, noting the absense of outrage? Are his leftist feminist friends condoning Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali? I doubt it. This technique is childish. Knock it off.

My votes:

Governor: Howard M. Switzer.
Bredesen has this one locked up, I think, so I am giving my vote to a third party candidate. I don't agree with Switzer on gun control (he supports it), and I'm iffy on single-payer healthcare (which he advocates), though more because of ignorance than opposition.

Constitutional Amendment #1 (the "we hate them gays" amendment): No.
Duh.

Constitutional Amendment #2(property tax limits for retirees): No.
While I think this sort of tax relief (freezing of property taxes for 65+) would be good for halting gentrification, it doesn't need to be in the constitution. When did we get all amendment-happy?

United States Senate: Harold Ford
Holding my nose and swallowing.

United States House of Representatives, 5th district: Ginny Welsh
Cooper is bulletproof. My vote goes to Ginny Welsh, who represents my views pretty well.

Tennessee Senate district 19: ...
Thelma Harper is uncontested here. Maybe I'll write in myself. Who's with me? (write in me, not yourself.)

Tennessee House district 58: Mary Pruitt
Democrat, natch.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 1 (yearly property tax referendum): No.
Referendums cost a lot of money. We already pay money to elect and employ representatives to decide levels of taxation.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 2 (public Mayoral address): Emphatic Yes
The fact that the Mayor's address has been a private event at the NACC in the past has always been an embarrassing display of ostentatious exclusivity. It should be open to the public.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 3 (audit division): Yes
A different division should audit the finance department. Who polices the police, though? My vote? Me.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 4 (2 term limit for Mayor): Yes.
I am wishywashy on this, but I lean towards term limits being a Good Thing, particularly in local politics.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 5 (budget schedule constriction): No.
Unrealistic, for the reasons pointed out by the Tennessean:

The concern, however, is that realistic numbers are difficult to arrive at by the current dates. Moving up the process by two months probably would prove to be an exercise in futility.

Metro Charter Amendment No. 6 (resident metro board & commission staff only): Yes
While I think that such an amendment for all metro employees (as has been discussed) is silly, I think it makes more sense for boards and commissions, where priorities for the Metro area would be better reflected by local residents. There's something wrong about Metro boards and committees staffed entirely by people that live in wealthier commuter suburbs (as is more likely now).

The FCC is set to rubber-stamp the AT&T/Bellsouth merger next week.

Broadband Reports is on it, and points out that things look grim for consumer choice.

For those of you that don't read Reason, the Nov. cover story, Attack Ads Are Good For You is particularly relevant lately.

I am not sure I agree with everything it has to say, but it's a good read. It includes a tour of the 10 dirtiest political races in US history.

I was looking for a workout DVD I had by a guy named Scott Helvenston -- it was a "Navy SEAL" workout that was a good tour of basic calisthenics stuff, but I only had it on VHS.

While looking, I just learned that Scott Helvenston was one of the four contractors for Blackwater security that were killed, mutliated and burned in Fallujah back in 2004.

That's depressing

There's an old saying: never attribute to malice that which you can attribute to incompetence (or coincidence).

This saying came to mind when I read about this.

Apparently some are up in arms because there are ominous tom tom drums playing in the background during mentions of Harold Ford Jr's name in this Corker ad.

Let's walk logically through the steps here:

• Did the Corker campaign hire a band and jingle-writing firm, or use Garageband, or whatever, to produce a song that has tom-toms specifically to coincide with mentions of Ford's name? Ooor, did they just use some stock crap jingle and put it in the background. I vote the latter, but the Corker campaign does have some pretty deep pockets.
• IF the former, did they use tom-toms to subtlely reference Harold Ford's blackness? Or did they use them because the tom-toms work with the low cello/bass hits to produce a more ominous effect. I vote the latter. Are deep bass and cello strokes racist, too?

Now, if we take it for granted that they used the tom-toms to produce a more ominous effect, I think there's an interesting sociological case to be made that the association of tom-toms and an "ominous" mood could be construed as a racist artifact. What are the tom-toms emulating? A more "tribal" drum sound. Why is that ominous? Because it may tie into our historical cultural association of "darkies" (be they native american, african, or anything else) with a tribal, "beastial", inferior, violent and predator nature (i.e. the justification for roughly half a millenium of colonialism and exploitation).

While I think this angle is interesting, I don't really think it is something you can blame on intent on the Corker camp. Never attribute to malice that which you can attribute to incompetence, coincidence, or subtle embedded 500-year-old institutional racism.