Immigration: Redux

This is old and incomplete but I figured I'd post it anyway....

Where to start? First, read my initial post on this topic. CSPAN had Juan Jose Gutierrez from Latino Movement USA on Washington Journal this morning and my first response is "wow." Please excuse the absence of a link to a website for Latino Movement USA. I could not find one.

Apparently, a call has gone out from pro-illegal immigration groups for all immigrants to boycott work, school, etc. on Monday, May 1st as a show of solidarity with the plight of the 20 million illegal immigrants in this country and, foremost, as a show of the force the immigrant population wields here in the US. Ok, that's fine with me. People here (let me correct that, citizens) in the United States have the right to assemble and petition their government, derived from the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. That's healthy and I encourage it as a public good.

One issue I have with the boycott is the way in which these groups are attempting to manipulate the children of this nation. These most vulnerable among us are eager to belong to a cause, make a difference in improving the world, and take, frankly, defiant action. Hitler certainly capitalized on this weakness of children. If you want to boycott work and school fine, if you want to make your kids do the same, fine, but don't think for one second the parents of this nation are going to let you turn our children against us. Hitler did that too. Oh and by the way, most Americans agree with me.

I have several issues with what Mr. Gutierrez had to say. First, he spoke about the United States stealing land from Mexico in the 1800s yet asserted "we are you," "we are America." Second, he mentioned civil war. Finally, Mr. Gutierrez asserted in a number of ways illegal immigrants are somehow entitled to the protections of the Constitution and its subsequent amendments. Let's take these one at a time.

To imply the southwestern portion of the United States was stolen from Mexico and at the same time purport illegal immigrants want to embrace American culture and ideals is patently absurd. You can't call us theives and imply entitlement to land while also arguing for admittance to land you claim is already yours. It's ridiculous. If you want to argue the land is yours, be my guest, and good luck. If you want to argue you should be admitted to the US don't assert part of our country is actually yours already.

Mr. Gutierrez also suggested if the United States attempts to deport the 11 million illegal immigrants the result would be civil war. That was a mistake. First, by definition you can't have a civil war with an invading force. Civil war is defined as: "A war between factions or regions of the same country." If you're not a citizen of this country you can't participate in a civil war with citizens, no matter how much you want to. If he thinks the people of this nation will fight amonst themselves for the rights of illegal immigrants he is sorely mistaken. I direct you once again to the Zogby poll.

And don't threaten me with war, because I've got news for you, if the illegal immigrant population forms an army to take rights by force I'll be the first man on the line fighting to preserve the sovereignty of this nation and to protect my family.

On several occassions Mr. Gutierrez refers to illegal immigrants being entitled to certain rights under the Constitution. Clearly, he missed the day in civics class they introduced the Constitution.

Narrow-Minded Pompous Self-Righteous Professors

So I've been terribly remiss in my blogging duties. It's been a very busy week. With a mere three days remaining in my learning career, I would like to reflect on the hypocrisy that is (most of) the faculty of the Neag School of Education. Here's the issue: they purport to be open to discussion, favor inclusion of all students, and support democracy yet their classes are run like like fascist municipalities supporting communist doctrine and suppressing all attempts at independent thought.

My latest exercise in futility was to question the universality and salience of the gender gap argument in present day America. Since the 1970s, liberals have asserted women are disadvantaged when seeking adminttance to college and in the job market. Surely this was true in the past, as was supported by much empirical evidence. However, much of this research is sorely outdated and the question remains, is this still true? Or at least, is this as true? Current articles (1) , (2), (3), suggest perhaps the answer is no to the latter.

Is this definitive evidence? Not necessarily, but it at least invites discussion of the changing thoughts on the subject. None of this current research was presented in class. It wasn't even mentioned and what we got was a skewed representation of reality. We were presented with one very extreme viewpoint and dissenting views were silenced. This, on its face, is contradictory to the schools supposed values. As it usually does, it gets worse.

In response to my e-mail sending these links to my professor and classmates, in what I would say was a very respectful e-mail, I received a link to a contrary viewpoint from my professor from a somewhat dubious source. Who is this veritable font of knowledge to counter the findings of The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, and The Week Magazine you ask? Danica McKellar. What? You don't know her. I think you do. Remember Winnie Cooper from the Wonder Years? That's her and she has some opinions on women in science you'd better listen to or she won't kiss Fred Savage ever again.

Alright she's got a degree in math and she did some great proof. That's admirable, but is she an expert on the gender gap? Does she have any evidence to back up her claims? Is this even a reasonable source to counter the articles I submitted? Why was it necessary to send a counter article when this viewpoint was emphatically represented in class? She also sent a link to what appears to be someone's posting in a discussion forum. Is this much better than Winnie's opinion?

This is my problem with professors. Their arguments are often weak and do not stand up to scrutiny so they narrow conversation to articles supporting their views. I think that's one of the major facets of facism is it not? That's certainly not democracy. Do you want these people teaching your children? Worse yet, do you want them indoctrinating the people who will teach your children? I certainly don't.