A vow to give the boot to criminal aliens has become an almost daily part of the New York senator’s presidential campaign spiel on overhauling the immigration system.

“Anybody who committed a crime in this country or in the country they came from has to be deported immediately, with no legal process. They are immediately gone,” Mrs. Clinton told a town hall meeting in Anderson, S.C., Thursday. [..] “No legal process,” the New York senator said at a forum in Tipton, Iowa, according to a political news outlet, the Politico. “You put them on a plane to wherever they came from.”

Katharine at Obsidian Wings points out:

If you read the full article, she does not, in fact, seem to be suggesting summary deportation in violation of the 5th amendment of any immigrant with a criminal conviction. This is just an applause line. But it reflects EXACTLY what I fear about the Clintons: the voters are anti-immigrant this year? Throw in an applause line about putting people on a plane without legal process. [...]

“Deport the criminals!” sounds great in theory, but when you’re wondering if you actually have to draft a deportation order for someone who came to the United States as a six month old based on a fairly petty conviction, & reading the “don’t deport my daddy!” letters in his file, it looks rather different. When you’re trying to avoid having to draft an opinion that sends someone to rot in a godawful Haitian prison because of a marijuana conviction he got in high school, it looks rather different. Now, if you’re talking about felonies & people who are here illegally to begin with, that’s another thing; I don’t mind the Z visa restriction she’s talking about & I don’t think any candidate opposes it. But there’s a real possibility of Congress passing some crappy, mean, immigration bill at some point during the next 4 years, & I have zero confidence that she’d fight them on it.

(2) Where have I heard the circular “we don’t need a legal process because they’re bad people and don’t deserve it!” argument before? Hmm….

And then from immigration attorney Crankyliberal, discussing the current laws that Clinton apparently finds too merciful:

Do you want to know how many Lawful Permanent Residents I’ve helped lately who were in proceedings for a single drug possession conviction? These people have been here for over 20 years in most cases, have families and jobs, and screwed up. One of them was a bit stressed out after surviving cancer and also having to take care of her mother who is suffering from cancer. So she did some drugs. Right now, they have a chance to prove that they deserve to stay because the positive equities outweigh the negative. Now, that’s their only chance- if they ever screw up again, they’re removed, no questions asked. [...]

…You want to deport the asylum seekers who have crimes? Are you saying you want to overturn the Convention Against Torture, a remedy founded in international law that may be availiable to ANYONE regardless of crime, provided they can prove to a judge that there is more than 50% chance that they will be TORTURED at the hands of their government?

Clinton’s rhetoric contributes to an anti-migrant atmosphere which has made it a real danger that (to pick one issue of many) some victims of domestic violence will be deported.

(You may wonder, reading this, where Obama stands on migrant issues. My impression is that he’s not perfect, but he’s better than other mainstream politicians, including Clinton. Even when it involves taking a political risk by supporting drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants.)

When I read this excellent article by Amanda Marcotte, I couldn’t help think of Mandolin’s post last October, “Children Fucking Children“.

The gist of Amanda’s article (and, in a lot of ways, Mandolin’s post before it) is that American adult attitudes towards teen sexuality are a huge part of why American teen sexuality is all fucked up. Of course, I agree with this, and I have for quite some time, but what’s nice is that Amanda has (gasp) evidence:

. . . Dutch teenagers, who have sex at the same ages as American teenagers, do better on the common indicators of sexual wellness. They change partners less frequently, they get pregnant less often, they use birth control more consistently, and they don’t contract STIs as often. The interviewers decided to measure parental attitudes about teenage sex by asking parents if they allow the romantic partners of 16- and 17-year-old children to sleep over. American parents almost universally recoiled at the idea, and Dutch parents almost universally accepted it.

From there, the interviews went into more depth, discovering that Americans and the Dutch conceptualize teenage sexuality and love much differently from each other. Dutch parents tend to accept that teenagers fall in love and generally have the expectation that teenage sex is a legitimate expression of love. Americans, meanwhile, to put it bluntly, reject the idea that teenagers can love each other.

So that’s pretty much it, isn’t it? Our contempt for teenagers is what’s doing this. Our refusal to respect their intellectual and emotional depth and to treat them accordingly.

I was 16 when I first had sex (actually, the day before my 17th birthday), and although (in retrospect) I think my mom might have been okay with my girlfriend, Tiffany, spending the night, I certainly never would have asked. I was too caught up in the prevalent social attitude that sex is something to be feared and hidden. So instead, Tiffany and I drove home from the high school at lunch to have sex, had sex after school, skipped school to have sex . . . luckily, we were both smart enough to use birth control scrupulously, but still, we acted as though sex was a hidden illicit pleasure . . . because, if you’re 17, it is. We were in love, though, and it shouldn’t have been.

And, you know, I think that perhaps the impact of parental/social/adult attitudes on teen sex works in another way as well. If adults are telling you that you’re too young to fall in love, and too young to make major life decisions (except of course, for when they’re telling you that the grade you get in Chemistry will affect your future irrevocably) and you, as a teenager, know that’s that’s untrue, well, I think it makes it that much less likely that you’ll listen to what they have to say about avoiding pregnancy, avoiding STIs, avoiding abusinve relationships, etc.

I think of it like the war on (some) drugs. If the government is telling you that pot drives you crazy and makes you think you can fly, then once you try pot and discover that that actually it just makes you hungry and kinda goofy, you probably won’t believe the government when it tells you that heroin is really the bad stuff. See, because they’ve already said that everything is really the bad stuff.

I think teen sex is like that.

I have a couple of diehard Republican friends, but they’re exceptions; most of my friends would no more vote for a Republican than they’d dine on a slow-roasted digital alarm clock. A more active controversy, among my friends, is whether to vote for a major party candidate at all; many feel that it’s wrong to vote for Bad Candidate when the opponent is Marginally Worse Candidate. Instead, they’ll be voting for third party candidates like Cynthia McKinney. (Edited to add: By the way, if you’re a leftist or a progressive, I highly recommend clicking over and listening to McKinney’s speech — if you’re a progressive who has been following mainstream politics, listening to McKinney really is like breathing fresh air for the first time in a long while.)

I have a lot of sympathy for that view. I was an ardent Nader supporter, and if there were a third-party movement going on right now that seemed vital and growing — a third party movement that I believed could eventually overthrow the USA’s appalling two-party system — I’d seriously consider working for it. I find the anti-democratic laws and tactics designed to keep minor party candidates off ballots disgusting and an insult to human liberty. And, if the vote in Oregon ends up being meaningless (which is often is), I probably will vote for whoever the Green Party candidate for president is.

Right now, however, the third-party movement doesn’t feel to me like it has much life to it. And the differences between a Republican and Democratic president — although much narrower than I’d like — can matter a hell of a lot. Which I was reminded of today by this post on rhrealitycheck, by Florence Machio, who lives in Kenya:

With a maternal mortality in my country high, the World Health Organization has introduced many strategies that could reduce the many deaths. What is often overlooked is the fact that African women are intelligent enough to make their own choices, if those choices are indeed available.

The choices begin from negotiating for sex, using contraceptives and carrying a pregnancy especially where incest and rape are concerned. One of the statements made by Dr. Jean Kaggia, an anti-choice advocate from Kenya, at the Congress was that we needed more money to change behavior. How does one propose that a married woman should change behavior when her husband is the one who makes the decision of whether to go to hospital or not or worse still whether to use a condom or not?

Kenya is a country with 42 tribes, which have varying cultural beliefs — meaning we can’t give a blanket solution to everyone.

I remember during the 2004 elections, many people in my country knew more about the politics of the US than knew what was happening in their own country’s economy. I cannot claim to know exactly why Kenyans did not particularly like the reelection of Bush. People like Dr. Joachim Osur and other doctors who deal with family planning issues in Kenya and Africa would have much preferred a Democrat to win the election. For me it meant that we had to suffer another four years of this policy, which, interpreted by the Bush administration, meant a cut in spending on family planning.

Thanks to the global gag rule, many organizations that provided family planning services had to denounce abortion in writing and also not provide post abortion care. Most of them refused for good reason — but that meant that they lost critical funding for their organizations and the eventual result was a close down of clinics in major districts in the country. This in itself affected many women and of course ended up reducing the gains that had been made over the years in family planning and reduction of unintended pregnancies.

I always say this — give an African woman or any other woman choices and that will go along way in reducing unsafe abortions that have taken away the lives of many of my sisters, mothers and daughters on the continent.

When it comes to reproductive health issues like the global gag rule, or funding UNFPA, the difference between having a Democratic and a Republican president will determine if countless woman get the medical care and reproductive choice they need to make their own choices, and — in many cases — if they live or die. Although I respect those who vote for third-party candidates, I’ll be urging people to vote for the Democrat — whoever the Democrat is — largely because of this issue.

Daily question shamelessly stolen from John Scalzi’s blog, The Whatever:

The Constitution has been amended to let YOU choose the next president! Personally! The catch: It can’t be someone who ever officially entered the 2008 presidential race (”officially” = On a ballot to date). Who do you choose? Real people, please, and all official restrictions (over 35, US native, alive) apply. Other than that, go nuts. Be as serious or as stupid as you like.

After a very silly conversation with my fiance (OK, who would you pick for president if the election were right-now-you-choose: Obama or Clinton? GW Bush or Huckabee? Phillip J. Fry or a ham sandwich?), I sat down and actually considered the question a bit more seriously. I decided that the best person I could think of is an anthropology professor I had as an undergraduate: Carolyn Martin Shaw. I felt she was wise and excellent with people and possessed of the analytical abilities to handle the huge amount of new information I imagine one must absorb when dealing with all the various jobs of a president. One significant drawback to her magically-induced candidacy — which applies to anyone I can think of, really — is I’m sure the job would make her miserable.

So, how would you answer the question?

From CNN’s website:

Within minutes of posting a story on CNN’s homepage called “Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina,” readers reacted quickly and angrily. [...] Many took umbrage at the story’s suggestion that black women voters face “a unique, and most unexpected dilemma” about voting their race or their gender.

CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American. [...]

An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: “Duh, I’m a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I’m illiterate I’ll pull down the lever for someone. Hm… Well, he black so I may vote for him… oh wait she a woman I may vote for her… What Ise gon’ do? Oh lordy!”

Another CNN reader pointed out that (since the media has written off John Edwards) white men also are, by CNN’s standards, choosing between voting their sex or voting their race. Yet, mysteriously, CNN isn’t writing stories about that.

(Curtsy: The Debate Link)

No one outlines the contours of contemporary racism better than Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. In his book Racism Without Racists, he discusses in depth the key elements of contemporary racism. However, he goes well beyond beliefs to discuss the rhetorical practices of contemporary colorblind racism. One of the rhetorical styles of contemporary racism he identifies is “rhetorical incoherence.”

Because the new racial in America forbids the open expression of racially based feelings, views, and positions, when whites discuss issues that make them feel uncomfortable, they become almost incomprehensible.

In the interviews used in his study, many people who were otherwise articulate people, had difficulties discussing racial issues. In particular, Bonilla-Silva notes that questions about personal relationships with blacks, intermarriage, and self segregation.

I was reminded of rhetorical incoherence and inarticulateness, this weekend as I listened to reporters discuss the Presidential election. I watched a discussion between 3 white reporters on MSNBC–two white women and one white man. Since this is 24 hour cable news, and they had to provide instantaneous commentary on the South Carolina Democratic primary, I expected them to have a few little stumbles. However, the two women reporters were very inarticulate, especially when the subject turned to whether or not race should/did matter in contest between Clinton and Obama. One reporter kept tripping over her words, and seemed very unsure of herself. She ended several comments with “you know what I mean,” and the other woman reporter would jump in with a yes. Any person familiar with TV and radio commentary knows that a reporter shouldn’t end her commentary with, “you know what I mean?” If a person has to say this repeatedly, then maybe that person isn’t making sense, and of course, one of the rules of being a reporter is “if you make a mistake just go on. ” In all honesty, I didn’t know what this reporter meant. She was vacillated back and forth between the “race doesn’t matter perspective” and the “black voters are turning to Obama perspective,” which is clearly a contradiction. What was clear to me was that this inarticulate reporter, with the help of her colleague, was going on self edit mode. She was trying to please two groups of people-those who say race doesn’t matter and those who say race does matter.

I’ve noticed this phenomenon all over the TV–many otherwise articulate people cannot talk about race in an intelligent manner. Some of it is the general ignorance people have about race. Most people, especially whites, also don’t seem to have clear parameters for discussing race in a true interracial context. Like nearly every reporter I have observed discussing race over the past few weeks, it was clear that the reporter above did not know the distinction between racial identity and racial ideology/issues. Moreover, like most people I hear discuss race, she was unable to make a distinction between “should racial issues/identities matter” and “do racial issues/identities matter.” This is, of course, one of the central problems with colorblindess. Maybe in an ideal world where race was never invented race wouldn’t matter, but we don’t live in that world. If I’m being totally honest, I prefer a forthright, articulate racism over inarticulate, double speak racism. It is often refreshing to know exactly where someone stands on race rather than having to watch an individual’s behaviors to see if words match deeds. I felt this way while watching this reporter. In fact, I was actually happy when she moved on to the next subject and her verbal skills improved. I was tired of trying to figure out what she was saying, and I was tired of watching her embarrass herself.

I don’t want to be too harsh on this lone reporter because I guarantee that, if you are paying close attention, you will see rhetorical incoherence from many people. You’ll notice it in classrooms, in interpersonal discussions, on blogs, and in many different areas where discuss of race occurs. Be prepared to see it often in this Presidential race.

I think ‘imperialist lapdog’ would be the nicest thing that I could say about Suharto, the former Indonesian Prime Minister who died recently. His government secured resources for capitalists, by systemic brutality of the people who lived there. Timor Leste has fought and won independence (of a sort), but West Papua and Acheh are still fighting for their freedom, having withstood decades of attack from the state.

Those who remain silent about his actions at the time of his death are making it explicit that they prioritise West Papua’s Copper and gold over its people.

I will say this at least the American Ambassdor is honest:

Cameron Hume, the US ambassador in Jakarta, said Suharto was a close ally who led his country through a period of “remarkable” development.

The sky has been falling for a long, long time….

Click on the image to see a larger version.

(Stolen from Feministe… where the damn thing worked. Click over there for now, and I’ll plead to someone more techified to fix it later.) (Fixed! Amp)

1) I have mono.

2) The rough draft of my thesis is due in two weeks.

As usual, use this thread to discuss anything and everything, or to post whatever links you’d like. Self-linking is encouraged.

Jim Lobe points out that “strong supporter of Israel” is too often used by the press as shorthand for “extreme right-wing views on Israel.” For instance, the Washington Post referred to the founders of “Freedom’s Watch” as “strong supporters of Israel.”

I don’t doubt that the group’s donors consider themselves “strong supporters of Israel”, but what precisely is meant by that? If the phrase means supporters of the government of Israel, then it is inaccurate, because the positions of Adelson and other Watch donors on such key questions as Jerusalem, the West Bank — indeed, any territorial compromise — even Annapolis and a two-state solution, are well to the right of the current Israeli government. In fact, Adelson, like most RJC heavyweights, are strong supporters of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party which, the last time I checked, constituted the government’s chief political opposition and is maneuvering to bring it down. So, if they oppose the current government of Israel, in what way are they “strong supporters of Israel?”

This kind of journalistic shorthand — associating neo-conservatives and their organizations like the RJC and Freedom’s Watch — with being ‘’pro-Israel’’ or “strong supporters of Israel” — is unfortunately pervasive in the mainstream media. It is not only inaccurate; it is also dangerous. It [...] puts those individuals or organizations — particularly in the American Jewish community — that are very concerned about Israel but that believe that the neo-conservatives have actually undermined the country’s security in a kind of political limbo. After all, if Adelson, Freedom’s Watch, and the RJC are considered “pro-Israel” or “strong supporters of Israel,” what does that make Americans for Peace Now or the Israel Policy Forum, both of which consider themselves “pro-Israel” and “strong supporters of Israel” but also believe, contrary to hard-line neo-conservatives, that a two-state solution with major territorial compromises that include East Jerusalem are the only way to ensure Israel’s security and long-term survival?

This kind of lazy journalistic labeling has very real and very unfortunate political consequences.

I’d take issue with the “best interests at heart” phrase, which gets into motives. I do think it’s true, however, that calling right-wing policies “pro-Israel” implies that these policies are good for Israel, which is a partisan opinion that many would disagree with. The mainstream media should find a more neutral term to use.

Nothing I could say about Palestinians forcing open the Gaza-Eygypt border at Rafah could possibly measure up to that action’s power.

Egypt is already trying to close the border. Maybe by the time I wake up tomorrow this relief will be shut off again, but maybe the Egyptian government will find it hard to shut people back in. It’s the world’s biggest prison break and should remind everyone of the possibility and power of resistance.

For more Raising Yosuf, brownfemipower has a great collection of links, and Al Jazeera is always good.

In The American Prospect, Jeff Faux argues that the economic pressures on poor Mexicans to immigrate to the US in search of paying work are going to just get more intense for at least the next decade or so. He argues that the best way to relieve that pressure would be to proactively work to improve job growth in Mexico.

The bargain that undergirded the creation of the European Union could serve as a rough model. When the EU was being negotiated, many in France, Germany, Great Britain, and other wealthier countries feared that they would be flooded with workers from poorer nations like Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Greece. To prevent that, the EU provided a substantial transfer of investment funds to generate job growth in the poorer countries. It worked. Despite the EU’s provision for free movement of labor across the borders, when offered reasonable economic opportunities, workers in the poor countries stayed home.

The aim of a renegotiated NAFTA would be to provide for a similar fund for investment in Mexico in exchange for changes in Mexican law and institutions that would allow the income of Mexican workers to rise as their economy grows. These would include guarantees for free trade unions, enforceable minimum wages, and an increase in education, and other social spending. The cost would be about $100 billion, although much of it would be in the form of loan guarantees rather than cash. Not an insignificant sum, but certainly affordable.

Who’s even running again? (But it’s clear who’s behind the podium…)