Update on "Pushing Out Legals"

Last week the Washington Post wrote a story about Nelson Lopez, a legal Virginia resident who was possibly going to be denied the right to in-state college tutuion fees because his parents are illegal immigrants.

Well shortly after the Post's story appeared suddenly the University of Virginia decided to grant him one of the special circumstances waivers, so the kid gets to pay the same rate as every other legal Virginia resident.

Apparently the state attorney general's office responded to a request for clarification as to when such waivers could be granted.

"I think in circumstances where an applicant has spent his or her life in Virginia, has been educated in Virginia schools, has gotten his or her driver's license in Virginia -- even though financially dependent on their parents -- that individual has done all that he or she could do at that age to establish a domicile independent of their parents. I think the memo was helpful to us in pointing the way," [said Andrea Leeds Armstrong of U-Va.'s committee on Virginia status.]

I get the idea that they would like to look and see how much of a resident the student is, getting a drivers' licence, etc. But why should becoming financially independent of their parents and establishing a separate home be part of those requirements?

The only explaination I could even think of is that the state wants the legal (adult) children of illegal immigrants to make sure that they aren't tainted by their parents somehow. Seriously, why else require they not be like every other 18-22 year old who gets help for college from their parents, including sometimes living at home to save money.

By the way, I'm not sure exactly what Lopez's circumstances are, but this is the description of his family from the original story.

He says his family, five people squeezed into a two-bedroom apartment, could never afford out-of-state rates.

Pushing Out "Legals" Are We?

So when can you be a resident of a state, a tax-paying citizen and still be denied the right to in-state college tutition? Apparently if your parents are illegal immigrants.

Until I read the story in the Washington Post today that in my home state of Virginia, American citizens ages 18 to 24 are being denied in-state tuition at state colleges and universities if they can't prove that their parents are also legal citizens. (Why 24? Because apparently that's the age everyone thinks you are no longer financially connected to your parents. Yeah, I know a lot of people who have been screwed out of going to college or had a very difficult time because of this rule. Many states demand tax statements from BOTH parents, despite the fact that a lot of people don't have two parents involved in their lives.)

I cannot think of a valid reason for this law to exist. Even if the blah-blah-blah "they're illegal!" reason is the excuse, that shouldn't apply to the 18 to 24 years olds who are in fact, born in this country. This is not even about scholarship funds or any kind of hand-out. It's simply about whether someone who attended school in Virginia, and is a legal resident, should be allowed to pay the same in-state tuition fees that any other legal resident of Virginia is asked to pay.

I keep asking myself if there's a way to be anti-illegal-immigrant without being, at some level, kind of racist. My gut tells me (and also a lot of examples) that scratch just a hare-breathe beneath the "they're illegal" whining you find someone is really just want to keep non-white, non-Christians out of their town/state/country and focusing on the "illegal" part because that is socially-acceptable.

Otherwise please explain to me what is the motivation for blocking LEGAL CITIZENS the right to attend college?

Fear Of Mongol Hordes

Anyone who thinks that small town USA is somehow kinder and “more American” than large cities should read this story about Taneytown, Maryland. It’s a town of 6,700 and, despite the fact that it’s foreign-born population is likely about 24 individuals, two members of the city council decided it was a good idea to pass a resolution which basic point was “Brown people are not welcome.”

The focus of the fast-sharpening dispute has been a City Council resolution, which was narrowly defeated Monday night, that declared: "The City of Taneytown is not a sanctuary city for illegal aliens." It warned that the town "does not welcome individuals who are in the United States illegally," suggesting they would harm the quality of life. It would have directed local officials to assist residents in supporting the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Paul Chamberlain, the council member sponsoring the resolution, acknowledges that Taneytown has no problem with illegal immigrants. But he sees an apocalypse coming: the gangs, the trash, the crowding that communities in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia have attributed to an influx of impoverished, often undocumented Mexicans and Central Americans. And he hopes that putting up a virtual keep-out sign will steer them away from the corner of Carroll County.

"This is a preventive measure. Other places are passing laws against illegals, so where will they go? To the places that welcome them," said Chamberlain, a dapper man who sells recreational vehicles. "I am not trying to spew hatred against anyone, but I will not cower just because someone calls me a bigot. We have got to send a clear message that people who break the law are not welcome here."

I will point out that the town’s mayor did not want the resolution passed, and so it failed, three to two.

But the real meat of the story (and why I’m so glad the Washington Post sent a reporter to the town) is in the quote reporter Pamela Constable got.

Away from the heat and glare, residents expressed more complicated, often contradictory opinions. Many said they were worried about reports of foreigners flooding larger towns in the region: the Hispanic laborers who came to pick apples in Pennsylvania and stayed, the Muslim group that is trying to buy a farm in nearby Walkersville and turn it into a retreat. Yet no one reported having any negative encounters with immigrants, and a handful of employers praised them as hardworking.

The Walkersville Muslim group, by the way, which is a Silver Spring Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, are not in any way illegal immigrants. So this isn’t about whether anyone is “breaking the law” but about keeping the Mongol hordes away from their white sanctuaries.

Kevin Few, 42, a construction worker, said Hispanic migrants are driving down wages in Maryland and making it hard for people like him to find work. "Personally, 99 percent of them seem nice, clean and hardworking," he said. "But they come here, do our work for nothing, cram into apartments and buy new cars, while the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet. It's not fair."

They are coming here, working hard and BUYING NEW CARS! Oh my god, the horror! The horror! You might even call them an uppity people.

This one, however, takes the cake.

At the local McDonald's, retirees meeting for coffee said they were not aware of Chamberlain's resolution but were nervous that illegal immigrants would come to the area. One woman, who said she was afraid to be identified, explained, lowering her voice: "If I tell you my name, the illegals might look up my address and come after me. They've already broken the laws, so what do they care?"

Yes, the Mongol hordes are after you ma’am. Who knows what they will do to you if they only know where you live.

The real story is that Taneytown is dying. And if anyone is going to rescue it, it will be the new blood of immigrants coming in. Who do pay taxes and start new businesses. Maybe the white people would rather the population dwindle to nothing but remain pure?

VA-GOP And The Press: Making Joe McCarthy Proud

In Virginia at some point it was decided that illegal immigrants are "the problem.” Maybe it was about the time the GOP started losing in the state so it was thought this was going to be a great campaign to make sure that stopped happening. I know this coordinated with a national movement to make undocumented workers “the problem” so you know this just was spontaneously decided by state party leaders everywhere that in 2006-07 illegal immigrants were suddenly a campaign issue again.

Anyway I bring up Joseph McCarthy because I was thinking about him in relations to Jay Rosen’s post at PressThink about how the Press got caught flat-footed when covering the Bush administration. I asked him in what other periods did the Press learn it had to change its methods. Rosen suggested, perhaps, the post-McCarthy period.

So with in this mind I was reading this story in the Washington Post by Kirstin Downey “A Board Meeting Blitz by the GOP.”

And I realized, not to put Ms. Downey on the spot for a common mistake, but she is allowing a Joe McCarthy problem to be pushed by her story.

That illegal immigrants are “the problem” is the story the GOP want to push. So they staged a confrontation at county board meeting in a heavily Democratic county (mine as it were). But she inadvertently pushes the GOP line in the context of reporting, correctly, what was said, without demonstrating what is factual.

The story is peppered with quotes and assertions by the GOP about illegal immigration. Meanwhile the Democratic county board members are also quoted, but the statements about immigration aren’t challenged directly because this was not a debate club. The Democratic county board members weren’t there to counter every factual statement made in an attempt to push this frame that illegal immigrants are “the problem.”

This is a short story but reading this paragraph is what reminded me of Rosen’s recent post.

Republicans said they are asking not for immediate changes, but for debate over how to handle illegal immigrants, some of whom are creating "public safety" concerns, the speakers said.

About five weeks ago, an illegal immigrant was sentenced to three life terms and 20 years for the rape of a 42-year-old Arlington woman. She was attacked by the man, a Salvadoran, as she walked along the Four Mile Run bike path.

"We just want a review, given the national situation," said [Rafael Bejar, chairman of the Arlington County Republican Committee], a Cuban American who said that police officers should be required to report immigrants suspected of felonies or violent crimes to federal immigration officials but that in Arlington it is only a "recommended" action. Atkins said he has been told that the county jailed at least 789 illegal immigrants, including some for felonies, in 2006.

Bejar is making an assertion, (who knows if its even true) that he was told there were 789 illegal immigration jailed, including some for felonies, which implies a level of criminality. (Being jailed of course means nothing in itself. People can be jailed for loitering, for protesting, for driving while Hispanic. It does not automatically imply that all jailed people are “the problem.”)

Moreoever Bejar then used an anecdote, which while true, implies a greater level of menace about all illegal immigrants.

One of the point of history I remember being taught in journalism school about the McCarthy era was that the newspapers strenuously objected to Joe’s assertions. On the editorial page. In the back.

Meanwhile the assertions ran in banner headlines on the front.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence that the same day as Downey’s story the Washington Post ran an editorial condemning the Virginia GOP’s tactics. That ran on B6.

Downey’s story ran on C1 of the Virginia edition. (Don’t trust the link, which says it ran on C6. I think it ran inside the Metro section in other editions but I have a picture of the dead tree version to prove it.)


Check out my update on the topic which really changes the perspective of the story a LOT.