Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Barbara Holm: Rhetoric of Rape

I feel like I've heard the word rape more in the last five years than ever in my life. Maybe in part that's because five years ago I was 20 and busy thinking about Harry Potter. But I think mostly it's because sexual violence is being discussed more, by politicians, people in television, comedians, and society in general. I wonder if that means as a society battling an endless rape culture, we're starting to pull out... or that it's getting worse.

On Wednesday New Mexico Rep. Cathrynn Brown introduced House Bill 206, that would make getting an abortion after sexual assault a criminal offense because it would be tampering with the evidence. You may be thinking, "Cathrynn... that is a woman's name... weird." Well, reader, good job remembering literally the only thing I remember from Wuthering Heights, and yes, you're correct.

This is one of the craziest things I've ever heard, and I'm a comedian who likes jokes about cryptozoological creatures and aliens. Brown's language that she used to describe it makes it seem like she has no idea that she sounds like she's punishing the victims. She sounds like she's not thinking of the victims at all. NM Rep Gail Chasey commented, "As an attorney I started looking at it and thought that's not how we gather evidence in a rape anyway, so it doesn't even make sense logically."

How would using a fetus as evidence even work? The baby comes out, it hunts down its father and confronts them on Jerry Springer and then 20 years later, boom, we got him!? Also, what about victims that don't get pregnant? That opens up the Todd Akin "legitimate" argument that if women don't get pregnant, maybe they weren't really assaulted... Which just basically proves that Todd Akin and people akin to him lack a legitimate soul.

I think this kind of rhetoric is what shames a lot of victims into not reporting it, or subliminally encourages men into thinking that forcing, manipulating, or taking advantage of women is okay. (It's not okay. Ever. Being a good person is okay. Try that.) It seems like we're talking about it more, which I think is good because it's bringing it into the spotlight, calling attention to the problem, hopefully inspiring to take action towards a solution. I wonder if maybe this style of conversation has been historically consistent, but now finally people, men and women, are speaking out against the rhetoric.

It's good that we're getting so mad about the comments politicians and comedians are making. But it doesn't seem like the politicians are getting any better at it. The Todd Akins and Cathrynn Browns and Daniel Tosh's (Yes I know he isn't a comedian, thank goodness) do not seem like they are learning, developing empathy or social graces. What if we talked about sexual violence like it was a bad thing? Oh, no I'm ruining comedy again. I'm not saying politicians and comedians shouldn't talk about horrible crimes; I'm just saying maybe talk about it in a way that makes the rapist, not the victim the villain.

I honestly think Cathrynn Brown made a mistake in her wording and did not mean to villainize the victims. But lately it seems the excuse of "I misspoke" is a broken record, and that our record of talking about sexual violence in a way that doesn't terrify women on a primal fight or flight level is also broken.

The way we talk about rape in the media often illustrates the crime as a violent crime that occurs in dark alleys (which it is) but this neglects the idea it can happen at a party, or a date, or at a friend's house. Our words affect how people perceive issues. The media, news and otherwise, has a lot of influence on our culture's behavior. Even if politicians or comedians aren't saying, "Rape is okay," they're often not saying "rape is wrong" either. I think it's good we're talking about it more. Let's make sure we're talking about it in a beneficial way. The way people are talking about it in the news is affecting how your kids are talking about it in gym class and how your boyfriends are talking about it in their stupid boyfriend treehouse club. (Do boyfriends have treehouse clubs? I don't know.) Words have a lot of power. Don't use them for evil.

I think the best way to deal with a problem like this is to put more thought into how to talk about sexual violence in a way that makes it clear that it is a horrible thing. I guess I'm not really saying anything too outlandish there. I think after the Cathrynn Brown incident, it's important to remember that a lot of us are good people, and we shouldn't just be silent and wait until someone makes us angry to show that.


Follow Barbara Holm on Twitter: www.twitter.com/barbara_holm



Montana Republican Pushes Draconian Law

WASHINGTON -- A Republican state legislator in Montana, who once asked to be paid in gold coins, has introduced legislation that would allow convicted criminals in the state to request a sentence of corporal punishment in lieu of jail.

State Rep. Jerry O'Neil (R-Columbia Falls) has put forward a new bill that would allow the option of corporal punishment for those convicted of misdemeanors and felonies in the state. The bill, which has not yet been assigned to committee, would allow for the convicted to bargain with a judge for a sentence of corporal punishment, but would give the judge the final say in who receives such a punishment. The Lowdown blog of the Great Falls Tribune first reported the story Tuesday evening.

O'Neil's legislation defines corporal punishment as "the infliction of physical pain on a defendant to carry out the sentence negotiated between the judge and the defendant." The exact means of inflicting said physical pain is not written into the bill, but would presumably be determined during negotiations between defendants and judges. The bill also does not specify whether any felonies would be exempt from the law, thus allowing for the possibility that murderers could receive corporal punishment instead of jail time.

The last case of corporal punishment used for a criminal in the U.S. was a public whipping in Delaware in 1952. Delaware formally abolished public whipping in 1972. Under the terms of the Montana legislation, corporal punishment -- whatever method might be employed -- would be conducted either by county sheriffs or officials with the state Department of Corrections.

Corporal punishment remains a common form of criminal punishment in several countries including Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Yemen and Nigeria. For example, media reported on Monday that the Iranian state amputated the fingers on the right hand of a convicted thief. Corporal punishment remains on the books in several other countries including Barbados, Botswana, Brunei, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zimbabwe.

O'Neil, who backed Ron Paul for president in 2012, is no stranger to unusual requests. Late last year, he requested that the state pay his legislative salary in gold and silver coins to guard against the collapse of the dollar. The request was denied by state officials.

Also on HuffPost:

  • Alabama State Capitol (Montgomery, Ala.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 2012. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

  • Alaska State Capitol (Juneau, Alaska)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 18, 2011. (AP Photo/Chris Miller)

  • Arizona State Capitol (Phoenix)

    Pictured on Friday, April 23, 2010. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

  • Arkansas State Capitol (Little Rock, Ark.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Nov. 30, 2011. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

  • California State Capitol (Sacramento, Calif.)

    Pictured on Thursday, Jan. 5, 2006. (Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images)

  • Colorado State Capitol (Denver)

    Pictured on Thursday, Oct. 26, 2006. (Photo by Doug Pensinger/Getty Images)

  • Connecticut State Capitol (Hartford, Conn.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Feb. 7, 1999. (AP Photo/Bob Child)

  • Delaware State Capitol (Dover, Del.)

  • Florida State Capitol (Tallahassee, Fla.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 3, 2011. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

  • Georgia State Capitol (Atlanta)

    Pictured on Tuesday, November 13, 2007. (Photo by Jessica McGowan/Getty Images)

  • Hawaii State Capitol (Honolulu)

  • Idaho State Capitol (Boise, Idaho)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 14, 2008. (Ned Dishman/NBAE via Getty Images)

  • Illinois State Capitol (Springfield, Ill.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

  • Indiana State Capitol (Indianapolis)

    Pictured on Saturday, Feb. 4, 2012. (Photo by Jeff Gross/Getty Images)

  • Iowa State Capitol (Des Moines, Iowa)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2011. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

  • Kansas State Capitol (Topeka, Kan.)

    Pictured on Thursday, April 15, 2010. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

  • Kentucky State Capitol (Frankfort, Ky.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, April 12, 2006. (AP Photo/James Crisp)

  • Louisiana State Capitol (Baton Rouge, La.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 14, 2008. (Matthew HINTON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Maine State Capitol (Augusta, Me.)

    Pictured on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011. (AP Photo/Pat Wellenbach)

  • Maryland State Capitol (Annapolis, Md.)

    Pictured on Friday, Nov. 23, 2007. (JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Massachusetts State House (Boston)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2007. (Photo by Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

  • Michigan State Capitol (Lansing, Mich.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, April 13, 2011. (Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

  • Minnesota State Capitol (St. Paul, Minn.)

    Pictured on Friday, July 1, 2011. (Photo by Hannah Foslien/Getty Images)

  • Mississippi State Capitol (Jackson, Miss.)

    Pictured on Thursday, June 10, 1999. (AP Photo/Rogelio Solis)

  • Missouri State Capitol (Jefferson City, Mo.)

    Pictured on Friday, Oct. 16, 2000. (Photo credit should read ORLIN WAGNER/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Montana State Capitol (Helena, Mont.)

  • Nebraska State Capitol (Lincoln, Neb.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Nov. 25, 1998. (AP Photo/S.E. McKee)

  • Nevada State Capitol (Carson City, Nev.)

  • New Hampshire State House (Concord, N.H.)

    Pictured on Friday, Dec. 28, 2001. (Todd Warshaw//Pool/Getty Images

  • New Jersey State House (Trenton, N.J.)

    Pictured on Friday, Aug. 13, 2004. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

  • New Mexico State Capitol (Santa Fe, N.M.)

  • New York State Capitol (Albany, N.Y.)

    Pictured on Sunday, March 16, 2008. (Photo by Daniel Barry/Getty Images)

  • North Carolina State Capitol (Raleigh, N.C.)

    Pictured in 1930. (AP Photo)

  • North Dakota State Capitol (Bismarck, N.D.)

    Pictured on Thursday, April 19, 2012. (AP Photo/Dale Wetzel)

  • Ohio Statehouse (Columbus, Ohio)

    Pictured on Tuesday, March 8, 2011. (Photo by Mike Munden/Getty Images)

  • Oklahoma State Capitol (Oklahoma City)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

  • Oregon State Capitol (Salem, Ore.)

    Pictured on Friday, May 20, 2011. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, file)

  • Pennsylvania State Capitol (Harrisburg, Pa.)

    Pictured on Thursday, June 28, 2012. (BRIGITTE DUSSEAU/AFP/GettyImages)

  • Rhode Island State House (Providence, R.I.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Aug. 1, 1945. (AP Photo)

  • South Carolina State House (Columbia, S.C.)

    Pictured on Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

  • South Dakota State Capitol (Pierre, S.D.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012. (AP Photo/Doug Dreyer)

  • Tennessee State Capitol (Nashville, Tenn.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Sept. 30, 1941. (AP Photo)

  • Texas State Capitol (Austin, Texas)

    Pictured on Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011. (MIRA OBERMAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Utah State Capitol (Salt Lake City)

    Pictured on Thursday, March 15, 2001. (GEORGE FREY/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Vermont State House (Montpelier, Vt.)

    Pictured on April 9, 1953. (AP Photo/Francis C. Curtin)

  • Virginia State Capitol (Richmond, Va.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, May 2, 2007. (Photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images)

  • Washington State Capitol (Olympia, Wash.)

    Pictured on Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte)

  • West Virginia State Capitol (Charleston, W.V.)

    Pictured on July 2, 2010. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Wisconsin State Capitol (Madison, Wis.)

    Pictured on Saturday, Dec. 24, 2011. (KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images)

  • Wyoming State Capitol (Cheyenne, Wyo.)

    Pictured on Tuesday, March 6, 2001. (Photo by Michael Smith/Newsmakers)




Joe Donnelly, Conservative Democrat, Opposes Assault Weapons Ban

Around the Web:

Ind. Dem Donnelly opposing assault weapons ban

Giffords appeals for gun control at hearing

John Nichols: Ryan should heed Catholic leaders on guns

Obama assault weapon ban gets no respect in Indiana

Sen. Joe Donnelly opposing assault weapons ban

Donnelly: More limits on firearms needed

Sen-elect Joe Donnelly, pro-gun Democrat, now open to gun control ...

Joe Donnelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) - The Washington Post



Tuesday, January 29, 2013

For GOP, World Turned 'Upside Down' On Immigration


(Repeats with no change in text)
* Republican leaders' shift on immigration after election
* Some fear party risks irrelevancy by alienating Hispanics
* Bipartisan plan's biggest hurdle likely to come in House
By John Whitesides
WASHINGTON, Jan 29 (Reuters) - What a difference one brutally disappointing election can make.
At this time last year, Republican U.S. presidential contenders were competing to act tough on immigration to win favor with the party's conservative base.
Eventual nominee Mitt Romney led the way by advocating "self-deportation" - a plan that essentially called on the government to make life so miserable for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanics, that many would leave on their own.
But since Democratic President Barack Obama's decisive victory over Romney in November with the support of more than seven in 10 Hispanic voters, the game has changed.
Many Republicans now see gaining favor with the fast-growing Hispanic voting bloc, which accounts for 10 percent of the U.S. electorate and is growing, as a matter of political survival.
Some remain critical of any plan that would give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. But next-generation Republican leaders - including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, 41, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party movement - are desperate to remove the issue as a liability for the party.
That is why a plan announced on Monday by a bipartisan group of eight U.S. senators including Rubio is widely seen as the best hope in years for a comprehensive immigration overhaul - even though it is similar to a 2007 plan that was shot down by conservative Republicans despite being backed by Republican President George W. Bush.
But now, "the politics on this issues have turned upside down," said New York Democrat Chuck Schumer, another senator in the bipartisan group crafting the immigration plan.
"For the first time ever, there is more political risk in opposing immigration reform than in supporting it," Schumer said.

REPUBLICANS LOSING HISPANIC SUPPORT
Compared with the bitter, uncompromising politics that have clouded Capitol Hill in recent years, the news conference held by the senators on Monday was practically a festival of love.
There was Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona - who lost the presidential race to Obama in 2008 and is a frequent critic of the administration - heaping praise on the Democratic president for supporting immigration reform.
There was Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, giving credit to Bush for backing immigration changes when many Republicans did not.
During the news conference, Rubio and Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey, another member of the group, made a point of explaining parts of their plan in Spanish, a symbolic reach-out to those who could be affected by it.
The changed dynamic on immigration reflected how "the election was a real wake-up call to Republicans. They have had their eyes opened on Hispanics," said Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Minnesota.
Asked why he thought this immigration bill might succeed, McCain said: "Elections. The Republican Party is losing the support of our Hispanic citizens."
Republican strategist Ana Navarro said McCain - whose state borders Mexico and is about 30 percent Hispanic - could be an important voice to other Republicans on the immigration bill.
"Nobody can talk to other Republicans with the authority that John McCain can about what it means to move the Latino vote," Navarro said.

'AN IMPORTANT FIRST STEP'
The group of senators behind the immigration plan - which also includes Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democrat Michael Bennet of Colorado - said they hoped for quick action.
But even if successful, Congress' revamping of the immigration system is likely to take most of 2013. Congress also will be wrestling with budget issues and Obama's ambitious gun-control proposals in the next few months.
"Today is an important first step in what is going to be a significant and complicated journey," Rubio said.
The plan would create what the senators called a "tough but fair" path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants after undefined improvements to border security and a crackdown on people who have overstayed their visas.
The plan faces some hurdles in the Senate. But the big question will be whether it can clear the Republican-led House of Representatives, which is dominated by conservatives adamantly opposed to anything resembling "amnesty" for undocumented immigrants.
One rising star among House conservatives - Paul Ryan, the Budget Committee chairman who was Romney's vice presidential nominee - already has voiced support for Rubio's immigration efforts. Others seem to be loading up to attack such a plan.
"When you legalize those who are in the country illegally, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars, costs American workers thousands of jobs and encourages more illegal immigration," Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said in a statement.
Many conservatives said they would wait for the final proposal, which will be developed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the final measure will require far more input than it has received so far.
"All members must have an opportunity to debate and amend any legislation that comes to the floor. This effort is too important to be written in a back room and sent to the floor with a take-it-or-leave-it approach," McConnell said. "It needs to be done on a bipartisan basis and include ideas from both sides of the aisle."
Groups that oppose easing the immigration restrictions blasted the plan and predicted that it would meet the same fate as the 2007 bill.
"We expect that once the American public learns of the details of this proposal, and comes to recognize that it will do nothing to fix the problems of our broken immigration system, it will meet with the same overwhelmingly negative response that it received in 2007," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
But backers of a comprehensive immigration plan said there was a new mood of optimism in their ranks.
"The histrionics and demagoguery on immigration have died down, at least for now," said Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party who has launched an immigration reform group.
"There seems to be a different attitude," Cullen said. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by David Lindsey and Will Dunham)

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Also on HuffPost:

  • The Naturalization Act of 1790

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was our country's first set of laws dealing with citizenship. Applicants had to be "<a href="http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226 " target="_hplink">a free white person</a>" of "good moral character." This excluded indentured servants and slaves. Good moral character was substantiated by establishing residence for at least one year in the state from where he was applying, and at least two years of residence in the country. The Naturalization Act of 1795 would extend that requirement to five years, and is still standard today.

  • The Fourteenth Amendment, 1868

    A Reconstruction Amendment that was added to the U.S. Constitution following the Civil War, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment establishes for the first time that children born on U.S. soil would be conferred U.S. citizenship regardless of their parent's citizenship status, race, or place of birth. Last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) introduced the <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr140 " target="_hplink">Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011</a> to Congress, and challenged this. The bill would require that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident for a child to be granted citizenship. According to the <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/text " target="_hplink">bill's text</a>, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and "clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth." Prior to this, Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html " target="_hplink">introduced</a> a similar <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show" target="_hplink">bill</a> in 2009.

  • The Naturalization Act of 1870

    The Naturalization Act of 1870<a href="http://thepoliticsofimmigration.org/pages/chronology.htm " target="_hplink"> explicitly extended</a> naturalization laws to "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent." This meant that for the first time, African-American children would be conferred citizenship upon birth. Asian immigrants and other people of color are excluded per the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.

  • The Page Act of 1875

    Named after Republican Representative Horace F. Page, this is the first U.S. federal immigration law to explicitly prohibit the immigration of a particular group: persons of Asian descent. Primarily meant to limit Chinese immigrant labor and prostitution, the Page Act prohibited the immigration of: (1) contracted labor from "China, Japan, or any Oriental country" that was not "free and voluntary," (2) Chinese prostitution and (3) criminals and women who would engage in prostitution. Ultimately, the <a href="http://www.uchastings.edu/racism-race/pageact.html " target="_hplink">Page Act</a> severely <a href="http://immigration-online.org/228-page-act-united-states-1875.html " target="_hplink">restricted</a> the immigration of Asian women. Only 136 of the the nearly 40,000 Chinese immigrants who arrived in the months before the bill's enforcement were women. And, it would pave the way for the Chinese Exclusion Act. In this picture, Michael Lin, chair of the 1882 Project, a coalition of rights groups seeking a statement of regret over that year's Chinese Exclusion Act, speaks on May 26, 2011 in Washington, DC, at the US House of Representatives in front of a reproduction of a 19th-century sign that aimed at rousing up sentiment against Chinese Americans. Lawmakers introduced a bill that would offer an official statement of regret for the act, which banned further immigration of Chinese to the United States and ended citizenship rights for ethnic Chinese. (AFP PHOTO/SHAUN TANDON).

  • The Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882

    Signed by President Chester A. Arthur, the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/seven/chinxact.htm " target="_hplink">Chinese Exclusion Act</a> was the first federal immigration law to prohibit immigration on the basis of race. The bill barred all Chinese laborers, skilled and unskilled, from immigrating to the U.S. for ten years. It was made permanent by 1903, and was not lifted until the 1943 Magnuson Act. The 1898 Supreme Court <a href="http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/exclusion.html " target="_hplink">decision</a> in <em>United States v. Wong Kim Ark</em> finally extended naturalization laws to persons of Chinese descent by ruling that anyone born in the United States was indeed a U.S. citizen. This editorial cartoon from 1882 shows a Chinese man being excluded from entry to the "Golden Gate of Liberty." The sign next to the iron door reads, "Notice--Communist, Nihilist, Socialist, Fenian & Hoodlum welcome. But no admittance to Chinamen." At the bottom, the caption reads, "THE ONLY ONE BARRED OUT. Enlightened American Statesman--'We must draw the line <em>somewhere</em>, you know.'" (Image Source: Frank Leslie's illustrated newspaper, vol. 54 (1882 April 1), p. 96. [Public domain], via <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_only_one_barred_out_cph.3b48680.jpg" target="_hplink">Wikimedia Commons</a>).

  • The Naturalization Act of 1906

    The Naturalization Act of 1906 further <a href="http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/eastern_southern_immigration.html" target="_hplink">defined</a> the naturalization process: the ability to speak English was made a <a href="http://www.enotes.com/topic/Naturalization_Act_of_1906" target="_hplink">requisite</a> for immigrants to adjust their status.

  • The Immigration Act of 1924

    U.S. President Coolidge signed this U.S. federal <a href="http://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/ImmigrationAct " target="_hplink">bill</a> into law. It capped the number of immigrants who could be admitted entry to the U.S. and barred immigration of persons who were not eligible for naturalization. And, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 required, an immigrant had to be white in order to naturalize. The quotas varied by country. Image Source: Flickr Creative Commons, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycmarines/6306315902/" target="_hplink">NYCMarines</a>.

  • The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

    The <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zwaVG82lZisJ:www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/polsciwb/brianl/docs/1952McCarranWaltersAct.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjEwx76FIBTixZAfyncZz-1CSuSeciv5qB6vvWTrUfW58XRpXq8zkpnI57XSuuG5Bu-WSySGbEhxYvZxP7y6qDQuOsDhgDa6qUqUaJ8F4imTzKJsVtppHc_-eew2dK6vGhoIUZs&sig=AHIEtbTNQ5GFiNMVS-xyThq8VVSj_gG9KA " target="_hplink">McCarran-Walter Act</a> kept up the controversial Immigration Act of 1924, but <a href="http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ImmigrationAct" target="_hplink">formally</a> ended Asian exclusion.

  • Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

    When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, it <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html" target="_hplink">abolished</a> the quota system that favored immigration from Europe and limited immigration from Asia and South America.

  • Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

    The 1996 <a href="http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-10948.html " target="_hplink">Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act</a> (IIRIRA) is a piece of legislation that <a href="http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/1996_illegal_immigration_reform_and_immigrant_responsibility_act.html " target="_hplink">defined</a> an array of issues to do with legal and illegal immigration -- from outlining how border patrol agents should administer visa processing, to the minutiae of how to handle deportation proceedings -- IIRIRA established enforcement and patrolling practices.




Report: Needless Unemployment Fees Forced Upon Jobless Americans

WASHINGTON -- Jobless Americans are paying millions in unnecessary fees to collect unemployment benefits because of state policies encouraging them to get the money through bank-issued payment cards, according to a new report from a consumer group.

People are using the fee-heavy cards instead of getting their payments deposited directly to their bank accounts. That's because states issue bank cards automatically, require complicated paperwork or phone calls to set up direct deposit and fail to explain the card fees, according to a report issued Tuesday by the National Consumer Law Center, a nonprofit group that seeks to protect low-income Americans from unfair financial-services products. An early copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press.

Until the past decade, states distributed unemployment compensation by mailing out paper checks. Some also allowed direct deposit. The system worked well for people who had bank accounts and could deposit the check without paying a fee.

It also cost states millions of dollars each year to print and mail the checks.

Banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co., U.S. Bancorp and Bank of America Corp. seized on government payments as a business opportunity. They pitched card programs to states as a win-win: States would save millions in overhead costs because the cards would be issued for free. And people without bank accounts would avoid the big fees charged by storefront check cashers.

However, most of the people being hit with fees already have bank accounts. The bank-state partnerships effectively shifted the cost of distributing payments from governments to individuals. The money needed to cover those costs is deducted from people's unemployment benefits in the form of fees.

Consumer advocates like NCLC are focused on ensuring access to the direct-deposit option so that people can avoid the card fees.

The trouble, the new report says, is that many states make it difficult for people to sign up for direct deposit. The rate of people using direct deposit ranges from a national high of 82 percent in Minnesota to a low of 16 percent in Arizona, the report says.

Minnesota offers direct deposit to people when they apply for benefits, and allows them to change their payment method online or over the phone, the report says.

In Arizona, by contrast, people are automatically enrolled in the card program. After they receive the card, they must find a paper form, fill it out, and submit it by mail. There is no way to change payment methods online or over the phone.

"The difference in direct-deposit rates among states seems primarily due to how hard or easy the state makes it for workers to choose direct deposit," the report says.

In five states ' California, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland and Nevada ' unemployed people aren't offered direct deposit at all. The report says that setup is illegal under a federal law that bars states from requiring benefits recipients to open an account at a particular bank.

The federal government recommended in 2009 that people with bank accounts receive payments via direct deposit. Nearly four years later, the report says, "there is no excuse for any state not to be offering direct deposit as the first choice for payment of unemployment benefits."

Banks make more money when more people use the cards. In the past, some of their deals with states prevented states from offering direct deposit, or required states to promote the card program as a first option.

To cover the cost of issuing cards and running the programs, banks charge a plethora of fees, including charges for balance inquiries, phone calls to customer support, leaving an account inactive for a period of months, or making a purchase using a personal identification number.

Many states have eliminated some fees and improved consumer protections in the two years since NCLC published its first comprehensive review of state unemployment payments. Banks no longer charge overdraft fees, which skimmed up to $20 from the benefits of card users whose spending exceeded the balance on the card.

Pennsylvania was singled out for praise in the report. Residents of that state will save $5.2 million in card fees each year because the state switched to a lower-fee card.

In part because of the recent improvements, the report says, prepaid cards often are the best option for people who don't have bank accounts. Those people would often pay even bigger fees to storefront check cashing services.

"A well-designed prepaid card is safer, cheaper and more convenient than paying to cash a paper check," said Lauren Saunders, one of the report's authors, in a prepared statement. But she said "it is no substitute for direct deposit to an account of your own choosing."

___

Daniel Wagner can be reached at . http://www.twitter.com/wagnerreports

Also on HuffPost:

  • Millionaires

    More than<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/millionaires-unemployment-benefits_n_1931837.html"> 2,000 millionaires took home unemployment</a> benefits in 2009, according to a recent report from the Congressional Research Service. That comes to a total of $20.8 million.

  • Prisoners

    Prisoners in a variety of states may be improperly receiving unemployment benefits while serving time. An investigation by Illinois officials in July turned up <a href="http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-11/news/ct-met-inmate-unemployment-20120712_1_unemployment-benefits-greg-rivara-inmates">at least 420 inmates</a> taking home unemployment benefits, according to the <em>Chicago Tribune</em>. In Arizona, the state improperly paid prisoners more than<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/19/arizona-collects-on-improper-payments-to-prisoners/"> $1.1 million in unemployment benefits</a> over a two-year period, according to Fox News. In one case a convicted killer managed to <a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8568004">collect $30,000 in unemployment benefits</a> between 2008 and 2010, the Los Angeles ABC affiliate reports.

  • Dead People

    Among the people improperly receiving unemployment benefits in New York state are those <a href="http://www.wwnytv.com/news/local/Dead-People-Receive-Unemployment-Checks-164616016.html">who aren't even alive</a>, according to the Associated Press. The state's comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said he's stopped more than $1 million in improper benefits to the dead, undocumented immigrants and working people.

  • Government Workers

    In Maryland, one state worker making $9,700 <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-02/news/bs-bz-audit-unemployed-workers-20121002_1_unemployment-benefits-overpayments-auditors">took home $5,800 in unemployment benefits</a> at the same time, according the <em>Baltimore Sun</em>.

  • Fired Prison Workers

    The California Corrections Agency <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/31/local/me-prisons31">wrongly paid prison workers</a> that they fired for misconduct $1.3 million in unemployment benefits over two years, the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> reports. Recipients included a prison guard fired after being arrested in a drunken hit-and-run incident and a prison guard involved in a narcotics transaction.

  • People With Jobs

    It may come as no surprise that one of the requirements of receiving unemployment benefits is being unemployed, but in Illinois at least <a href="http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1681146451/Illinois-cracking-down-on-unemployment-fraud">12,000 people wrongly collected</a> unemployment benefits while working, according to the <em>Peoria Journal-Star</em>.

  • Retired Public Workers

    In Massachusetts <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-seeks-recoup-billions-unemployment-benefits-paid-error/story?id=15921922&page=2#.UGyUF_mfHll">retired public workers collecting</a> benefits became such a problem that local leaders pushed for statewide reform on the issue, according to ABC News. These retirees were receiving public pensions at the same time.



Conservative Foes Ready For Battle With Obama

Police, activists prepare days ahead of Ariz. law - Yahoo! News


» Bertha Lewis: A Socialist Rallying Cry for Immigration Reform - Big Government


30 Reasons to Give: #5 | Obama for America | 2012



Monday, January 28, 2013

Steven Cohen: The Importance of Immigration

According to New York Times reporter Julia Preston:

"A bipartisan group of senators has agreed on a set of principles for a sweeping overhaul of the immigration system, including a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants that would hinge on progress in securing the borders and ensuring that foreigners leave the country when their visas expire. The senators were able to reach a deal by incorporating the Democrats' insistence on a single comprehensive bill that would not deny eventual citizenship to illegal immigrants, with Republican demands that strong border and interior enforcement had to be clearly in place before Congress could consider legal status for illegal immigrants."

While it would be nice to think that all of this movement is simply an expression of our elected leaders finally deciding to do the right thing, it is of course a reaction to our growing Hispanic population and President Obama's overwhelming (about 70 percent) share of the Hispanic vote in his bid for reelection. However, if immigration reform finally happens it is long overdue and extraordinarily important.

Although some people like to pretend they came over on the Mayflower, very few of us are far removed from immigrant roots. A half century ago John F. Kennedy could call America "a nation of immigrants," and publish a book with that title: We remain a nation of immigrants today. Even if many of us did not have the courage or vision to uproot and move to America, many of our parents, grandparents and great grandparents made that difficult journey. Our diversity is what makes America unique and is a source of our fundamental strength and long term prospects.

Even before there was a global economy and the technology to support global communication, shipping and rapid travel, America was the world's gathering place. America did not collect the world's wealthy and elite, it attracted those rejected, oppressed, enslaved and even jailed. But those with the courage to come freely or the strength to survive the harsh treatment of slavery (and the equally harsh treatment of Native Americans) are the people who built this nation. The people trying to slam the door closed behind them are nearly all the descendants of relatively recent immigrants.

As the world gets smaller and economic competition is based more and more on creativity and technological innovation, the place that attracts the world's best minds will have a distinct advantage. We are that place. If you walk the streets of Tokyo or Beijing, it is not difficult to distinguish native from tourist. If you walk the streets of New York or the malls of Los Angeles, good luck in trying to figure out who is home and who is not. America may not be a melting pot, since each immigrant group tries to retain an element of their identity, but in its own often imperfect way, it is a place that is built to encourage, accept, tolerate and even absorb diversity. A place with roots everywhere has a tremendous edge in a global economy. We can do business anywhere, and host workers from anyplace. We are also a place that allows individual freedom and creativity. Even if economies are growing faster in other places, freedom and tolerance of diversity will remain a key part of America's appeal.

America has long been a place with a large foreign-born population. In 1900, when our population was about 76 million, about 10 million or 13.6 percent were born abroad. A decade later, our population was about 92 million and 13.5 million or 14.7 percent were foreign born. While in 1970 our foreign-born population slipped to less than 5 percent, that trend was soon reversed. In 1990 as our population approached 250 million, nearly 20 million or almost 8 percent were foreign-born. In our most recent census in 2010, there were 309,350,000 people living here, almost 40 million or 12.9 percent were born abroad. Over 17 million were naturalized citizens and over 22 million were non-citizens. These data do not include an estimated 11 million people living here illegally. The idea that immigration is un-American is a fundamental misread of our history and traditions.

The immigration debate is packed with ideology and misconceptions and the process of achieving citizenship has become cumbersome and bureaucratic. Brianna Lee of the Council on Foreign Relations has written an excellent summary of this debate, and she notes that:

"...after President Obama was reelected for a second presidential term in 2012, government officials and lawmakers have made several indications that they are ready to make a bipartisan push for broad, comprehensive immigration reform."

There is little question that a law violated every day by 11 million people undermines respect for all laws, but there is even less question that deporting 11 million people is an impractical and unjust response to an obviously dysfunctional immigration process. So we find ourselves at one of those political moments in time, when the door to a more reasonable policy has opened up a bit. Opening the door for these 11 million while slamming it shut for everyone else would be the height of folly. We need a reform that is reality-based. We need an immigration policy that recognizes that the very definition of America requires that we continue to welcome people from other places and other cultures. Our distinctive identity and character is built on constant and continuous immigration. If the nativist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant impulse is indulged by immigration reform it will be clear sign that America is in decline.

We need, as we have always needed, the kind of people willing to uproot their lives for a chance at the American dream. The surest sign that the dream has ended would be a policy that shut the door to legal immigrants, or a time when people are no longer attracted by the promise of America. President Obama was wise enough to include it in the compelling vision he presented during his second inaugural address when he observed that the American journey is far from over and said:

"Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country...."

The loaded language of the immigration debate includes words like "amnesty" and fear that the American way of life could be threatened by those not born to it. The American way of life was created by those not born to it. It is a history built by outsiders who pushed their way in: By my grandparents and probably by yours. Let's find a way to honor our history and traditions by continuing the practices that built that history and tradition. And let's do it before this brief political moment passes and the door once again slams shut.


Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute