Replies to post #178392 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

The (Sort of) New Mitt

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: June 22, 2012

Today: Mitt Romney and immigration.

As you know, American Hispanics are an important and fast-growing voting bloc. Romney has long had a strategy for winning them over. The key, he explained last year, is to tell them “what they know in their heart, which is they or their ancestors did not come here for a handout.”

Hard to get more appealing than that.

This was Primary Mitt, who had a long history of whacking his Republican opponents with soft-on-illegal-immigrants charges. In the 2008 campaign, he accused Rudy Giuliani of making New York a “sanctuary city” and Mike Huckabee of supporting “in-state benefits for illegal immigrants.” One of his ads called John McCain a champion of “amnesty for illegals.” The Romney news release that accompanied the ad’s debut mentioned “amnesty” 17 times.

It didn’t work. McCain won the nomination anyway. That was the earlier version of John McCain, before he lost the presidential race and was abducted by space aliens who took him off to a distant planet and substituted a cranky android with an obsession about border fences.

Last year, Romney tried the same tactics on Rick Perry. “I got to be honest with you. I don’t see how it is that a state like Texas — you go to the University of Texas, if you’re an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount,” he complained during one of the debates.

Perry suggested that when it came to undocumented students who had been brought to the country as children, Romney had no heart. Also, he tried to get some mileage out of the fact that Mitt had once employed illegal immigrants to tend his yard. But it was, you know, Rick Perry, so, of course, nothing worked.

Now Romney is the inevitable Republican nominee, and this week there he was, speaking to a large group of prominent Hispanics. It was his first chance to try out his strategy, but astonishingly, Romney did not tell the audience what they knew in their hearts about in-state tuition and other handouts.

In fact, the word “handout” never came up. Romney did tell the inspiring story of his father’s emigration from Mexico at the age of 5, although not the part about how the family had gone down there in the first place to avoid American laws against polygamy.

And there was quite a bit about the economy. You certainly can’t blame Romney for mentioning it every chance he gets. But not everybody would choose to follow “liberty’s torch can burn just as brightly for future generations of immigrants” with a call to lower the corporate tax rate.

Plus, standard Mittspeak. We are going to have a lot of this in the coming months, people. Let’s pause for a minute while you test your ability to be a Mitt Romney speechwriter:

“Though each of us walks a different path in life, we are united by one great, overwhelming passion. We love ...

A) heavily sugared soft drinks.”

B) attractive young women who marry into the British royal family.”

C) cat videos.”

D) America.”

“This isn’t an election about two people. This isn’t an election about being a Republican, Democrat or an independent. This is an election about ...

A) lowering the corporate tax rate.”

B) lowering the individual marginal tax rates.”

C) keeping dogs off the car roof.”

D) the future of America.”

O.K., the Ds. And not the most stirring speech in the history of the world. Obama, who followed up on Friday, got a warmer reception. But let’s try to figure out what Romney actually said. Except when it came to certain lawn-mowing episodes, he’s always talked very tough on illegal immigration. Now that he’s sniffing around for Hispanic voters, is he going to change his tune?

Answer: Romney vowed to address the problem “in a civil and resolute manner.” That was a surprise. I really thought he’d go for “impolite yet wishy-washy.”

Like many of our big policy debates, immigration reform has dwindled away to an argument about something less than sweeping. In this case, it’s the Dream Act, the popular plan to let people who were brought here illegally as kids become citizens if they get a college degree or serve in the military.

Primary Mitt was going to veto it.

General Election Mitt will take the military service part, “and if you get an advanced degree here, we want you to stay here.” (Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses bearing Ph.D.’s and master’s degrees in civil engineering or computer science. ...)

As for the mere college graduates, whom Obama has now announced he will protect from deportation under an executive order, Romney was, um, vague. But whatever he does will be “long-term.”

Also, he seems to have banished “self-deportation” and “amnesty” from his vocabulary. Unless it looks as if they’ll come in handy somewhere down the line.

*

Related News

Obama Draws Contrast With Romney in His Turn Before Hispanics (June 23, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/us/politics/obama-draws-contrast-with-romney-in-his-turn-before-hispanics.html

Romney Exhibits a Change in Tone on Immigration (June 22, 2012)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/politics/romney-exhibits-a-change-in-tone-on-immigration.html

*

© 2012 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/collins-the-sort-of-new-mitt.html [with comments]


===


Como se dice 'awkward' en Espanol?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-horsey-court-immigration-20120627,0,3993167.story


===


Romney’s Nixonian Secret Plans


Mitt Romney
(Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

by Bill Buck
June 22, 2012 12:57 PM

Does Mitt Romney understand the job he is interviewing for?

After the speech he gave to Hispanic legislators yesterday in Orlando the answer clearly is no.

Like a financier spinning fanciful scenarios to investors, Romney referred to the Obama Administration’s actions as a stopgap measure and insisted a Romney Presidency would provide an immediate and permanent solution.

He continued to avoid commenting [ http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/romney-latino-vote-softens-stance-on-immigration/ ] on the implementation of the DREAM Act by executive order, as though it would not be an issue he would have to deal with. He provided no details, not even a hint, of what Mitt Romney’s Immigration Plan is.

Either this is a lousy sales job, which is bad, or he has no idea there’s a difference between running Bain Capital and running the nation, which is worse.

Like Richard Nixon’s secret plan to end the Vietnam War in 1968, this is a total con job.

Romney’s secret plan for immigration joins his secret plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act as president. In both cases he provides no details about these plans. He has shared no thoughts about how he would deal with those affected by his plans.

All he gives is his ironclad guarantee that he can just put something in place immediately that will fix all the problems. Maybe that works in Mitt Romney’s delusional world.

At Bain Capital this kind of sales-job-slash-con-job may work. People desperate for him to turn around their company may not have worried about all the details.

At Bain Capital, Romney was able to do as he wished by putting a bunch of his buddies on an acquired company’s board to rubber stamp his plans.

Is Mitt Romney’s real secret plan to abolish Congress and set up a United States Board of Directors to rubber stamp his other secret plans?

Not going to happen.

But without such a rubber stamp his words are a fantasyland of empty promises.

Even Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has grown tired of the lack of details [ http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/06/20/gop-wont-say-if-immigration-plan-is-amnesty/target= ]. This week he complained that Senators were waiting for their leader to provide guidance on his immigration plans.

The voters may not be happy with the economy, but they aren’t going to settle for secret plans.

©2012 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22/romneys-nixonian-secret-plans/ [with comment]


===


Mitt Romney’s immigration headache becomes a full-on migraine

By Lee Hockstader
Posted at 11:56 AM ET, 06/25/2012

The Arizona immigration law that Romney hailed as a “model” [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-arizona-immigration-law-a-model/2012/02/23/gIQA8ULZVR_blog.html ] for the nation was mostly gutted by the Supreme Court [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA0Nrm1V_story.html ] on Monday. The court made it clear that the one key section of the law still standing — the check-your-papers provision — may yet be struck down if it turns out to promote racial profiling and discrimination. Which, in the case of Arizona, where the immigrant-baiting sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, is on a one-man crusade against Hispanics, is more than a little likely.

In Etch a Sketch mode, Romney once said that he wasn’t recommending the entire Arizona immigration statute be copied by other states, just the employment verification parts. But the court invalidated the parts of the law dealing with employment verification — criminalizing immigrants who seek or hold jobs without proper documents, for instance. Oops.

For the last week, Romney ducked and dodged any cogent response to President Obama’s order allowing some 800,000 undocumented youths to apply for work permits — a form of amnesty that enrage the Republican base.

Politically, his motives were obvious. Oppose the president’s move, and he further alienates Hispanic voters for whom the Republican brand is already highly toxic. Embrace it and kiss Tea Party voters goodbye. So Romney devised a neither-here-nor-there stance. Call it The Great Mumble. Asked whether he’d revoke or extend Obama’s order, he said he’d simply preempt it with comprehensive immigration reform.

That would be the same comprehensive immigration reform that both President Bush and President Obama have failed to enact, despite multiple attempts. In other words, Romney’s response to the Obama order was fiction. And not very artful fiction.

Next, we are likely to see more ducking and dodging from the Romney campaign, which will try to explain what it meant, or might have meant, or didn’t mean, when he called the now mostly gutted Arizona statute a “model.” As political messaging goes, it will be great entertainment. But don’t expect anything resembling clarity, coherence or transparency.

© 1996-2012 The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mitt-romneys-immigration-headache-becomes-a-full-on-migraine/2012/06/25/gJQAl0tv1V_blog.html [with comments]


===


3 Reasons Mitt Romney's 'No Comment' Campaign Is Unsustainable

On Monday, this Romney spokesperson managed to chew gum and deflect questions on Romney's position on the Supreme Court's immigration ruling at the same time [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9k_0MjY4GU ]:

Welcome to the Mittness Protection Program, general-election style: The man accused of having no core beliefs thinks the way to win is to play his views close to the vest.

By Garance Franke-Ruta
Jun 27 2012, 9:40 AM ET

"When is Romney going to look like a challenger? Seems to play everything safe, make no news except burn off Hispanics," media mogul Rupert Murdoch tweeted Sunday [ https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/217009901078196225 ].

It's been the plaintive cry of worried supporters and the shrewd observation [ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60444.html ] of reporters for going on a year now: Mitt Romney's favored strategy for pursuing the presidency this cycle is to hide in plain sight, avoiding hot-button issues except when forced to articulate positions on them, as during debates, and then reverting to close-lipped type. He's declined to release tax returns [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html ] dating to before 2010. He doesn't make his bundlers known [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-romneys-secret-bundlers/2012/06/09/gJQAkAqkQV_story.html ]. He tells his donors more about his policy ambitions than the public [ http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/15/11216845-romney-offers-policy-details-at-closed-door-fundraiser ], as reporters discovered in April when his remarks were "overheard by reporters on a sidewalk below" the room where he was speaking. He holds "secret meetings [ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/05/mitt_romney_claims_to_hold_secret_meetings_with_everyday_americans_.html ]" with voters to collect campaign anecdotes. Most recently, he's avoided taking a firm stand on the Supreme Court's decision [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/the-supreme-courts-arizona-decision-makes-romneys-life-more-difficult/258956/ ] partially overturning Arizona's strict immigration law. But as in the primary, where Romney's cautious style caused worry he was setting himself up for a protracted battle -- something that in fact came to pass -- there are real dangers in his approach.

"You're running for president and there's a golden opportunity for a challenger, given the economy, given the many failed initiatives of the Obama administration. It's somewhat confusing as to why he's playing it so close to the vest," conservative Republican strategist Keith Appell told Politico's Ben Smith [ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60444.html ] last August.

Plus ça change. Here's why it could be good tactics but bad strategy for Romney to stay too far above the fray in the general:

1. It makes Romney look weak.

Former President Clinton famously said after the 2002 midterm elections, in which the Republicans, the party in power, anomalously picked up seats, "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." Failing to take stands on the major issues of the day because they are controversial makes Romney look like he lacks the courage of his convictions. That reemphasizes the attack on Romney that he lacks convictions at all. But a say-nothing candidate is actually not the same as a say-anything one; the latter looks craven, the former, afraid.

And to the extent that President Obama makes bold moves [ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/obamas-game-changer-on-young-illegal-immigrants/258550/ ] on potentially divisive social issues, Romney's fear of coming too distinctly into view -- his "attack-and-dodge strategy [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/22/policy-black-hole-mitt-romney-keeps-his-ideas-to-himself.html ]" -- is cast into even greater relief.

2. It makes him look like he has something to hide.

Between the overseas bank accounts [ http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-20/romney-offshore-accounts/52700400/1 ], the lack of financial disclosure, and the destruction of his gubernatorial records [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campaign-romney-computers-idUSTRE7B500X20111206 ] in Massachusetts, it already looks like Romney is trying to hide his record and the true extent of his vast wealth. Failing to takes stands on major issues besides makes Romney look like he must believe something terrible in his heart of hearts.

The perception that Obama contained multitudes, even if he did not, worked for him in 2008. He was a newcomer on the scene onto whom voters projected their fantasies, hoping he would be a less conventional political actor than he in fact has been. But there's a real risk for Romney, who is better defined in the public mind than Obama was, that attempts to remain a bit of a cipher will just make him look sneaky.

"Trust me" is not a compelling campaign message for our our low-trust era.

3. It gives new weight to the argument he has no core and doesn't believe in anything except his own success.

All of this adds up to the idea that we can't know who Romney is. This is just anecdata, but a year ago, a number of Democrats of my acquaintance looked at Romney and saw a credible alternative to a president they were mad at -- a well-educated moderate Massachusetts Republican for whom they could vote without fear or embarrassment. Today, that warmth has passed and I hear a growing nervousness about him, a fear he would be worse than George W. Bush in office because of his lack of core convictions and the greater fractiousness and power of grassroots Republican activists, whom he seems open to indulging.

They are worried, in short, that "he who stands for nothing will fall for anything [ http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/51287.Alexander_Hamilton ]."

Romney's issue positions look increasingly like the negotiations of an attorney trying to close a deal -- he'll say what he needs to say, he'll tack and trim, and he'll change course if need be in order to get the result he wants at the great public bargaining table. But once in office, how will such a man govern? Romney's campaign is trying to play it safe by not revealing too much. But there's a real risk people also will look at that caution and develop some hesitations of their own.

Copyright © 2012 by The Atlantic Monthly Group

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/06/3-reasons-mitt-romneys-no-comment-campaign-is-unsustainable/258934/ [with comments]


===


American Children, Now Struggling to Adjust to Life in Mexico

Video [embedded]

Jeffrey’s Difficult Move: Jeffrey Isidoro, 10, moved to Mexico after his father was deported from the United States. He is part of a new generation of young immigrants blurring the line between Mexican and American.


Jeffrey Isidoro, 10, misses Houston and has had a hard time making friends at school in Izúcar de Matamoros in central Mexico.
Shaul Schwarz for The New York Times


"There are all these drug addicts, drug dealers, people who do nothing in the United States, and you're going to kick me out." — TOMÁS ISIDORO, Jeffrey's father, deported after living 25 years in the United States
Shaul Schwarz for The New York Times


A family photo of Jeffrey in front of their home in Virginia, where they lived before moving to Texas and then Mexico.
Shaul Schwarz for The New York Times

By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: June 18, 2012

IZÚCAR DE MATAMOROS, Mexico — Jeffrey Isidoro sat near the door of his fifth-grade classroom here in central Mexico, staring outside through designer glasses that, like his Nike sneakers and Nike backpack, signaled a life lived almost entirely in the United States. His parents are at home in Mexico. Jeffrey is lost.

When his teacher asked in Spanish how dolphins communicate, a boy next to him reached over to underline the right answer. When it was Jeffrey’s turn to read, his classmates laughed and shouted “en inglés, en inglés” — causing Jeffrey to blush.

“Houston is home,” Jeffrey said during recess, in English. “The houses and stuff here, it’s all a little strange. I feel, like, uncomfortable.”

Never before has Mexico seen so many American Jeffreys, Jennifers and Aidens in its classrooms. The wave of deportations in the past few years, along with tougher state laws and persistent unemployment, have all created a mass exodus of Mexican parents who are leaving with their American sons and daughters.

In all, 1.4 million Mexicans — including about 300,000 children born in the United States — moved to Mexico between 2005 and 2010, according to Mexican census figures. That is roughly double the rate of southbound migration from 1995 to 2000, and new government data published this month suggest that the flow is not diminishing. The result is an entire generation of children who blur the line between Mexican and American.

“It’s really a new phenomenon,” said Víctor Zúñiga, a sociologist at the University of Monterrey, in Nuevo León State, which borders Texas. “It’s the first time in the relationship between Mexico and the United States that we have a generation of young people sharing both societies during the early years of their lives.”

Critics of immigration have mostly welcomed the mass departure, but demographers and educators worry that far too many American children are being sent to schools in Mexico that are not equipped to integrate them. And because research shows that most of these children plan to return to the United States, some argue that what is Mexico’s challenge today will be an American problem tomorrow, with a new class of emerging immigrants: young adults with limited skills, troubled childhoods and the full rights of American citizenship.

“These kinds of changes are really traumatic for kids,” said Marta Tienda, a sociologist at Princeton who was born in Texas to Mexican migrant laborers. “It’s going to stick with them.”

Jeffrey’s situation is increasingly common. His father, Tomás Isidoro, 39, a carpenter, was one of the 46,486 immigrants deported in the first half of 2011 who said they had American children, according to a report by Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/87388663/ICE-Deport-of-Parents-of-US-Cit-FY-2011-2nd-Half ] to Congress. That is eight times the half-year average for such removals from 1998 to 2007.

Mr. Isidoro, wearing a Dallas Cowboys hat in his parents’ kitchen, said he was still angry that his 25 years of work in the United States meant nothing; that being caught with a broken taillight on his vehicle and without immigration papers meant more than having two American sons — Jeffrey, 10, and his brother, Tommy Jefferson, 2, who was named after the family’s favorite president.

As for President Obama, Mr. Isidoro uttered an expletive. “There are all these drug addicts, drug dealers, people who do nothing in the United States, and you’re going to kick people like me out,” he said. “Why?”

White House officials have said that under a new policy focused on criminals, fewer parents of American children are being deported for minor offenses. On Friday, the Obama administration also announced that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to United States as children would be allowed to stay [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-some-illegal-immigrants.html ] without fear of deportation. The policy, however, does not grant legal status, and because nearly half of the country’s 10.2 million illegal immigrant adults have children, experts say that inevitably more families will be divided — especially if deportations over all hold steady around 400,000 a year.

But for Jeffrey, the impact of his father’s removal in June last year was immediate. His grades dipped. His mother, Leivi Rodríguez, 32, worried that he had become more distant, from both his friends and his studies. Almost every day, Jeffrey told her he wanted to see his father.

So six months after her husband’s deportation, she sent Jeffrey to live with his father in Mexico, and she followed with Tommy a few months later. It was December when he arrived here in a hill town south of Mexico City, surrounded by fields of swaying sugar cane. On Jeffrey’s first night, he noticed something strange in his bed. “Dad, what’s that?” he asked.

“A scorpion,” his father said.

School here presented new challenges, as well. Jeffrey went hungry at first because neither he nor his father realized that without a cafeteria, students relied on their parents to bring them food at recess.

In class, Jeffrey’s level of confusion rises and falls. His teacher said she struggled to keep him from daydreaming. “His body is here, but his mind — who knows where it is,” she said.

Houston — that is where Jeffrey’s thoughts typically drift. There, he had friends, McDonald’s, the zoo. It is where he lingered at the library at Gleason Elementary to catch up on his favorite series of books, “Diary of a Wimpy Kid.” There, his school had a playground; here, there is just a concrete slab. There, computers were common; here, there are none.

“It was just better,” Jeffrey said.

The educational disparities between Mexico and the United States are not always so stark. At the elementary level, some of Mexico’s schools are on par with, or even stronger than, the overcrowded, underfinanced American schools that serve many immigrant children, education experts say.

But Mexican schools lag when it comes to secondary education. In many areas of Mexico, especially places where the tradition of migration is not as well established, Mexico’s educational bureaucracy can make life difficult for new arrivals like Jeffrey. It is not uncommon for American students to be barred from enrollment for a year or more because they lack proper documents.

“The established rules for registration don’t need to be so severe,” said Armando Reynoso Carrillo, a state legislator from Malinalco, a rural area in Mexico State where dozens of American children have arrived in recent years.

The problems extend beyond registration. Mexicans have a long history of greeting returnees with skepticism — for abandoning Mexico, or because they resent the United States, or view those who moved there as materialistic, culturally out of touch and arrogant. The prejudice often extends to their children.

Graciela Treviño González said that when she returned to Malinalco three years ago, after more than a decade in California, she could not get her American son onto a soccer team because the coaches refused to accept him without Mexican identification. “He felt rejected by everyone,” she said. “The kids called him ‘leche,’ ‘gringo’ — it was awful.” Leche means milk and gringo can range from a neutral reference to a foreigner to a slur.

Here in the central state of Puebla, Mexican children are especially likely to see transnational students as different, according to surveys by Mr. Zúñiga, the sociologist. Some have come to Mexico because of deportations. Others arrived because relatives were sick or without work.

But regardless of the cause, Mexican students tend to see their American-educated colleagues as strangers. Jeffrey’s experience is typical: He is friendly and quick to open up in English, but quieter at school, where Spanish is the only language one hears.

At one point this spring, as Jeffrey sat at the edge of the playground, a larger boy approached from behind and asked if he was from Florida or Houston. When Jeffrey pulled away because the boy had leaned into him, the bigger boy seemed surprised. “Are you mad?” he asked.

Later, other boys tested Jeffrey on his English, asking him in Spanish to translate various body parts.

“How do you say foot?” one asked. “Finger?”

“Eye?”

Jeffrey provided one-word answers without enthusiasm. At home, a three-room concrete box with furniture hauled from Houston, he said that many of the children called him Four Eyes. He said he was starting to feel more comfortable academically and socially, but even in a school with 11 other children born or educated in the United States (out of 296) he is still a foreigner. Sometimes, he confuses the Mexican pledge of allegiance with the American version.

Ms. Tienda, at Princeton, said children of Jeffrey’s age were more likely to struggle with such a difficult transition. “This is the age where they start to be aware of each other’s differences,” she said. “They’re preadolescents and their identity is being crystallized.”

She added that how these students fared over the long term will probably vary widely. Some will make the transition easily while others will suffer setback after setback. It will depend on their language skills, school and family dynamics.

Jeffrey, like many other children whose parents have moved them to a country they do not know, seems to be teetering between catching up to his classmates and falling further behind. His parents are struggling to find work and keep their marriage together. Jeffrey, in quieter moments, said he was just trying to endure until he could go home.

“I dream, like, I’m sleeping in the United States,” he said. “But when I wake up, I’m in Mexico.”

Shaul Schwarz contributed reporting.

*

Immigration Upended
Articles in this series are exploring the changing patterns of immigration between the United States and Mexico.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/americas/immigration-upended-series.html

*

© 2012 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/americas/american-born-children-struggle-to-adjust-in-mexico.html [ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/world/americas/american-born-children-struggle-to-adjust-in-mexico.html?pagewanted=all ] [with comments]


===


Don’t Shut the Golden Door

By JOHN M. MacDONALD and ROBERT J. SAMPSON
Published: June 19, 2012

IMMIGRATION [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/immigration/index.html ] is in the headlines again, with President Obama’s decision last week to stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, and the Supreme Court’s approaching decision on the constitutionality of Arizona’s crackdown on undocumented migrants.

But too much of the public debate has focused on the legality of immigration without considering a more fundamental question: What effects has mass immigration had on American society?

As a result of the 1965 immigration act, which opened the door widely to non-European immigrants, 40 million foreign-born immigrants now live in the United States. They make up 13 percent of the population, the largest such proportion since the 1920s. More than half of these migrants are from Latin America and the Caribbean, although a study released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center found that Asians overtook Hispanics in 2009 as the fastest-growing group of immigrants.

For the May issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, we commissioned some of the most meticulous research done to date about the effects of immigration on a cross section of American communities — urban, suburban and rural.

The scholars who participated were in remarkable agreement: while new immigrants are poorer than the general population and face considerable hardship, there is no evidence that they have reshaped the social fabric in harmful ways.

America is neither less safe because of immigration nor is it worse off economically. In fact, in the regions where immigrants have settled in the past two decades, crime has gone down, cities have grown, poor urban neighborhoods have been rebuilt, and small towns that were once on life support are springing back.

Scholars can’t say for sure that immigration caused these positive developments, but we know enough to debunk the notion that immigrants worsen social ills.

For example, in rural counties that experienced an influx of immigrants in the 1980s and ’90s, crime rates dropped by more than they did in rural counties that did not see high immigrant growth. Higher immigration was associated with reductions in homicide rates for white, black and Latino victims. In both Hazleton, Pa., which has a recent history of hostility toward immigration, and St. James, Minn., a much more welcoming community, migrants have also bolstered dwindling populations and helped to reverse economic decline.

In large gateway cities, immigration has been associated not only with a decrease in crime but also with economic revitalization and reductions in concentrated poverty. Data from the 2005 American Community Survey showed, for example, that the income of blacks in the New York City borough of Queens surpassed that of whites for the first time, a development driven largely by immigration from the West Indies.

Scholars found that immigrant youths in Los Angeles were involved in less crime and violence than their native-born peers in similar economic circumstances. Research also has shown that an increase in immigration in cities like San Antonio and Miami did not produce an increase in the homicide rate. Furthermore, social scientists found that people in immigrant communities in New York were less cynical about the law than were people in less diverse communities; they were also more likely to indicate that they would cooperate with the police.

If migration has had such beneficial effects, why, then, has there been such a persistent backlash?

Part of the answer surely lies in the social changes — language, political attitudes, religious mores — that immigrants bring, in addition to the effects of the recession. The leveling-off of migration, especially from Mexico, may bring a sense of relief to opponents of these social changes, but if the new research is any guide, the consequences of the slowdown may be the opposite of what the critics intend.

Comprehensive immigration reform — last attempted during the second term of President George W. Bush — should be a priority for whoever wins in November. Mr. Obama’s decision to exempt undocumented children who were brought to the United States by their parents from harsh deportation rules is an overdue, but welcome, first step.

Establishing a clear path to citizenship for undocumented adults, creating a more permissive guest-worker program, reducing unwarranted police stops of immigrants and preserving families rather than separating them through deportation are controversial ideas, but they deserve a hearing.

John M. MacDonald [ http://www.crim.upenn.edu/faculty/profiles/macdonald.html ] is an associate professor of criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. Robert J. Sampson [ http://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/ ] is a professor of the social sciences at Harvard.

© 2012 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/opinion/the-beneficial-impact-of-immigrants.html


===


Immigrants Are Crucial to Innovation, Study Says


Wenyuan Shi, a native of China, earned a patent in 2011 for the active ingredient in a lollipop that can help prevent tooth decay.
U.C.L.A. School of Dentistry

By ANDREW MARTIN
Published: June 25, 2012

Arguing against immigration [ http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier ] policies that force foreign-born innovators to leave the United States, a new study [ http://www.renewoureconomy.org/index.php?q=patent-pending ; also http://renewoureconomy.org/university-letter , http://renewoureconomy.org/not-coming and http://renewoureconomy.org/aeireport ] to be released on Tuesday shows that immigrants played a role in more than three out of four patents at the nation’s top research universities.

Conducted by the Partnership for a New American Economy [ http://www.renewoureconomy.org/ ], a nonprofit group co-founded by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, the study notes that nearly all the patents were in science, technology, engineering and math, the so-called STEM fields that are a crucial driver of job growth.

The report points out that while many of the world’s top foreign-born innovators are trained at United States universities, after graduation they face “daunting or insurmountable immigration hurdles that force them to leave and bring their talents elsewhere.”

The Partnership for a New American Economy released a paper in May saying that other nations were aggressively courting highly skilled citizens who had settled in the United States, urging them to return to their home countries. The partnership supports legislation that would make it easier for foreign-born STEM graduates and entrepreneurs to stay in the United States.

“Now that we know immigrants are behind more than three of every four patents from leading universities, the federal laws that send so many of them back to their home countries look even more patently wrong,” Mayor Bloomberg said in a statement.

But some worry that the partnership’s ideas for immigration reform would undermine similarly skilled American workers while failing to address broader problems with immigration policy.

“No one is asking what is in their best interest, the American worker,” said Eric Ruark, director of research for the Federal for American Immigration Reform, an advocacy group that is pushing for reduced immigration. “It’s what is best for the employers. What is best for the foreign workers. It’s not as if the foreign workers aren’t skilled. What’s being ignored is we already have a domestic work force that has the same skills.”

The most recent study seeks to quantify the potential costs of immigration policies by reviewing 1,469 patents from the 10 universities and university systems that had obtained the most in 2011. The schools include the University of California system, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Patents, the study maintains, are a gauge for a nation’s level of innovation and an important way for the United States to maintain an edge in STEM fields.

In one illustration of the issue, the study notes that nine out of 10 patents at the University of Illinois system in 2011 had at least one foreign-born inventor. Of those, 64 percent had a foreign inventor who was not yet a professor but rather a student, researcher or postdoctoral fellow, a group more likely to face immigration problems.

Some of the patents that were reviewed for the report have become business ventures. Wenyuan Shi, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, earned a patent for an ingredient in a lollipop he developed that works as a dental treatment for children. A native of China, Mr. Shi has created a company to commercialize his inventions.

But current immigration laws can make it difficult for foreign-born students to remain in the United States after graduation. And employers may be wary of hiring them because green cards, allowing for permanent residency status, are limited and the process of obtaining one is cumbersome and expensive.

Under the current system, foreign-born students are allowed to stay in the United States for 12 to 29 months after graduation, provided they find a job or internship in their field.

After that, more permanent visas are difficult to obtain, restricted by factors like country quotas. The study notes that China is entitled to the same number of visas as Iceland.

Dr. Ashlesh Murthy came to the United States from India in 2001 to pursue a master’s degree in molecular biology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Working with his professors there, he developed a vaccine for the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia, which obtained patents in 2011 and 2012.

Nonetheless, Dr. Murthy had to negotiate a bureaucratic maze to remain in the United States, and at one point was stuck in India for an extra month because American officials in India doubted a previously approved visa.

Noting that university officials petitioned a congressman to intervene on his behalf, Dr. Murthy, said, “If I was not in a position where they really wanted me, I seriously doubt I would have gotten back.”

© 2012 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/business/immigrants-played-role-in-majority-of-us-technical-patents-study-finds.html


===


(linked in):

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76806245 and following

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76992448 and following

[fuagf]

Roberts jokes about trip to 'impregnable' fortress'

Associated PressBy JOE MANDAK | Associated Press – Fri, Jun 29, 2012

FARMINGTON, Pa. (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he'll spend some time on an "impregnable island fortress" now that the court has ended a session that featured him casting the decisive vote to uphold President Barack Obama's health care law.

Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation.

"Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea," Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges, attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh southwestern Pennsylvania resort.

Roberts appeared Friday at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit, one day after the Supreme Court said the federal government can require citizens to buy health insurance. The impromptu 35-minute session featured Roberts answering alternating questions from Chief Judge David B. Sentelle, of the D.C. Circuit Court, and Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who heads the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Neither judge asked Roberts directly about the health care decision.

Rather, Roberts responded with the Malta quip after Sentelle asked him whether he was "going to Disney World" now that the court has adjourned for the summer.

The only direct question Roberts got about the health care opinion came when those at the conference were invited to ask questions.

That's when Roberts was asked what he thought his court's legacy would be in 50 years and "how one recent opinion might fit into that" — an obvious reference to the health care decision.

"Well, I won't answer anything that has to do with the second part of that," Roberts said. But he said he hopes that the court under him is remembered as one that "did our job according to the Constitution, of protecting equal justice under the law."

Lamberth hinted at the controversial decision when he asked Roberts if it bothered him that he can't respond to his critics.

"No," Roberts said, his brief answer hanging in the air to more laughter.

The conference at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort and Spa, about 50 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, was entitled "Science and the Law." It focused on how social sciences and psychology affect the way the courts are perceived by the public, as well as how judges go about making decisions when such sciences come into play.

Roberts wasn't asked about those subjects. Instead, he answered more than a dozen questions ranging from how he decides to assign cases to his colleagues to whether social media activity is a problem among Supreme Court law clerks.

"The flat rule is 'don't do it,' but we haven't had any situations come up," Roberts said.

http://news.yahoo.com/roberts-jokes-trip-impregnable-fortress-155049062.html

.. yahoo search links inside ..

[StephanieVanbryce]

Supreme Court Springs A Leak; Leaks To Conservative Pundits May Have Started More Than A Month Ago

In Reply to YOUR Health Care Dissent: Here's What The Conservative Wing Wanted To Happen [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-dissent_n_1634514.html ]

By Ian Millhiser on Jul 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Embedded Links ...MANY & Justice Kennedy sucks



CBS News’ Jan Crawford confirms widespread rumors that Chief Justice John Roberts initially voted to strike down the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, [ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody ] but decided midway through the opinion drafting process that he could not support this constitutionally unjustifiable result. [ http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/03/aca_lawsuit.html ] In what may be the biggest revelation of her piece, Crawford also reports that pseudo-moderate [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/29/508522/dissenting-opinion-analysis-justice-kennedy-abandons-all-pretensions-of-being-a-moderate/ ] Justice Anthony Kennedy led the internal lobbying effort to bring Roberts back into the right-wing fold:

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

Crawford sites two unnamed sources, and there are a very limited universe of people who could have revealed this information to her. Only the justices and their personal staff would have access to this knowledge, and it is highly unlikely that a clerk or secretary would be willing to risk their entire career by revealing the Court’s confidential deliberations to the press. Crawford, moreover, is a very well connected conservative reporter who has, at times, worked closely with the Federalist Society [ http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2010/06/05/176825/crawford-kagan-smear/ ] to drive conservative legal narratives. Nothing is certain, but it is likely that one or both of Crawford’s sources is a conservative justice.

Moreover, as Linda Greenhouse points out, [ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/a-justice-in-chief/ ] it is possible that the Court started springing leaks more than a month before Roberts handed down his opinion:

Around Memorial Day, a number of conservative columnists and bloggers suddenly began accusing the “liberal media” of putting “the squeeze to Justice Roberts,” as George Will expressed the thought in his Washington Post column. “They are waging an embarrassingly obvious campaign, hoping he will buckle beneath the pressure of their disapproval and declare Obamacare constitutional,” Mr. Will wrote. Although the court has been famously leakproof, Mr. Will and some of the others are well connected at the court, and I wondered at the time whether they had picked up signals that the chief justice, thought reliable after the oral argument two months earlier, was now wavering, and whether their message was really intended for him.

To be clear, at this point only two facts are confirmed: 1) According to Crawford, Roberts flipped his vote midstream; and 2) someone within the Court must have leaked her this information. It is perfectly appropriate for Justice Kennedy, or any other justice, for that matter, to internally lobby Roberts to try to obtain his vote in an important case. If a member of the Court has turned to conservative columnists like Will or reporters like Crawford in order to pressure and then embarrass Roberts, however, that would be a significant and unusual escalation from the justices’ regular tactics.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/01/509359/supreme-court-springs-a-leak-leaks-to-conservative-pundits-may-have-started-more-than-a-month-ago/

[fuagf]

In Caymans, It’s Simple to Fill a Hedge Fund Board

By AZAM AHMED


Mike Nelson for The New York Times

The subject of hedge fund directors has become an industry obsession,
headlining conferences, including one in April at the Grand Cayman Ritz Carlton.

GEORGETOWN, Cayman Islands — Just off the tarmac at the Grand Cayman International Airport, visitors were recently greeted by colorful banners advertising the Caribbean island’s sunny offerings: waterfront seafood restaurants, tax-free shopping — and hedge fund directors for hire.

In the last decade, as hedge funds ballooned in size and number to become a dominant force in the investing universe, directorship services have grown from a cottage industry into a big business on the Cayman Islands. Many funds run by United States money managers have their legal residence here for tax reasons. And because of a quirk in the island’s tax code, these funds must appoint a board.

As a result, dozens of operations have sprouted up on the Caymans to supply directors, from one-man bucket shops to powerhouse law firms. Directors are often Cayman-based professionals: accountants, lawyers and administrators of hedge funds.

Graphic Graphic: Serving on Many Boards
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/02/business/dealbook/serving-on-many-boards.html

They are rarely investors, though. Ostensibly, directors offer guidance and oversight to the funds. In return, a director is typically paid anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000 a year. With more than 9,000 funds domiciled on the tiny island, business is booming.

And so is a debate. Major investors and others are starting to question the value of offshore directors, especially in light of recent hedge fund frauds, liquidations and missteps. An analysis of thousands of United States securities filings by The New York Times shows that dozens of directors sit on the boards of 24 or more funds in the Caymans, which individually are supposed to be overseeing tens of billions of dollars in assets. Some hold more than 100 directorships, and one particularly busy director sits on the boards of about 260 hedge funds.

“You might as well save your $5,000 and buy a rubber stamp,” said Luke Dixon, a senior investment
manager at the British pension fund USS, which oversees more than £32 billion ($50 billion).

Directors have also been the target of lawsuits. A recent fraud case found two directors, who happened to be relatives of the hedge fund manager, liable for $111 million. The subject of directors has become an industry obsession, headlining hedge fund conferences, including one in April at the Grand Cayman Ritz Carlton.

The rise of the director-for-hire business — and the questions that surround it — underscore a transition for hedge funds. As the industry sheds its cowboy culture for a more button-down approach, it is adopting the structure and practices of mainstream investment firms. But even as funds hire compliance officers and marketers, some corners of the industry remain in a state of arrested development.

“The hedge fund industry is still trying to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up,” said Greg Robbins, the chief operating officer at a unit of Mesirow Financial. “Like any industry, it is just going to have to get embarrassed along the way to stop doing the silly stuff it used to do.”

The data for this article was drawn largely from filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission as part of its new oversight of hedge funds. Yet the filings do not paint a full picture. The directorships cited are only for funds with American investors, omitting thousands of funds that manage strictly overseas money.

Mesirow and other hedge fund investors, including USS and Man Group, have been clamoring for greater disclosure on how many boards directors serve on. They have taken their grievances to the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority, the local regulator, which has so far declined to release the information. Financial services are the island’s lifeblood, accounting for more than 35 percent of its gross domestic product and employing about 15 percent of the work force, according to a 2008 study by Oxford Economics, an economics consultancy.

At the heart of the hedge fund business here is Don Seymour, who has financed a mini-empire on the island with his directorship services company, DMS Management. Mr. Seymour, a onetime hedge fund auditor at PricewaterhouseCoopers, declines to say how many boards he sits on, though he says he selectively tells investors. A review of the S.E.C. filings shows Mr. Seymour occupies roughly 180 board seats, according to the Foundation for Fund Governance.

Mr. Seymour likens his work as a hedge fund director to that of a top doctor, who can see hundreds of patients a year. Just as every patient is not equally sick, every directorship is not equal, he says. He points to proprietary computer systems that track information about the hedge funds served by DMS directors. And associate directors at his firm handle much of the day-to-day responsibilities.

The growing debate, Mr. Seymour says, is driven by competitors eager to snag a share of his business.

“We have a bit of a Goldman Sachs problem,” he reflected from his company’s offices at DMS House, a slate-colored stucco building resembling the White House. “We are the worldwide leader in fund governance.”

A rival firm, IMS, also serves a large swath of the hedge fund industry. Its founder, Paul Harris, says focusing on numbers won’t tell investors whether a director can fulfill his responsibilities.

“Sometimes two boards are too much,” said Mr. Harris, who does not require his directors to disclose how many boards they serve on.

Mr. Seymour served as the head of investment services at the Cayman Island Monetary Authority, starting in 1998. While at PricewaterhouseCoopers, he says he audited the funds of the investor George Soros.

“I’m the guy that actually created the regulatory framework for hedge funds here,” he said in a wood-paneled conference room at DMS House, flanked by nearly a dozen staff members. Outside, a rooster crowed in the distance.

While in that post, Mr. Seymour recognized there was a huge business opportunity in staffing boards, and in 2000, he left the regulator to start DMS.

Mutual funds also have directors, charged with responsibilities similar to those of their hedge fund brethren. And they, too, have also come under fire for failing to protect investors. But while some directors oversee dozens of funds, those funds are typically operated by the same mutual fund company.

With hedge funds, directors sit on the boards of dozens of distinct hedge fund managers. And directors face far fewer requirements than mutual fund directors.

Some large hedge fund firms don’t even bother with outsiders for their Caymans funds board, choosing to stock their boards with people who work for the hedge funds or their lawyers.

In addition to firms like DMS and IMS, law firms like Ogier on the Cayman Islands offer hedge funds director services. That has raised questions about the dual role they can play, representing the hedge fund as counsel, and the investors of the same fund as directors.

Citing in part those potential conflicts of interest, the prominent law firm Walkers recently sold its directorship business. Before that, two Walkers directors had come under scrutiny for their oversight of two collapsed hedge funds of Bear Stearns Asset Management, which the law firm also counted as a legal services client.

“There is a trend toward complete independence,” said Ingrid Pierce, a partner at Walkers. “I think we’ll see more of that.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/in-caymans-its-simple-to-fill-a-hedge-fund-board/?ref=todayspaper

See also ..

John Arnold Is Said to Close Hedge Fund and Return Investor Money
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=75168895

[fuagf]

Say Anything: Top Romney Surrogate Claims Romney Justices Won’t Kill Roe v. Wade

"Beyond his legislative agenda — not just on health care, but on education and Wall Street regulation — Mr. Obama has sketched out a view of government as a force for good, a great leveler and a protector of the middle class. That view stands in stark contrast to the Republican mantra, articulated by Reagan, who headed in the opposite direction in his first inaugural address, saying that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”"

By Ian Millhiser on Oct 30, 2012 at 10:30 am

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney wants the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade. He called Roe “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history.” .. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/23/409824/on-anniversary-of-roe-romney-condemns-decision-as-one-of-the-darkest-moments-in-supreme-court-history/ . And there is video of him saying that he wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who will reverse Roe .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrIED-l5aY&feature=related . [ Insert embed ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrIED-l5aY&feature=related

Yet, at a Republican Jewish Coalition event on Monday, former senator and top Romney surrogate Norm Coleman (R-MN) was asked to address the concerns of “voters who are worried about the influence of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.” Rather than accurately convey Romney’s position on the issue, Coleman pretended that Romney would somehow be powerless against Roe .. http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/norm-coleman-mitt-romney-roe-v-wade.php :

The reality is, uh, choice is an issue for a lot of people, an important issue. President Bush was president eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn’t reversed. It’s not going to be reversed.

Watch it:

[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ordl1HBk90I&feature=player_embedded ]

Math is a notoriously difficult subject .. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/26/1095091/romney-econ-speech-preview/ .. for Romney and his campaign, but there is a simple explanation for why President Bush was not able to overrule Roe. Overruling a Supreme Court precedent requires five votes, and the two justices Bush appointed — plus staunchly anti-Roe Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — add up to less than five. Now, however, three justices .. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/16/697311/four-justices-are-now-over-the-age-of-74/ .. who have at times voted to uphold abortion rights are over the age of 74. If just one leaves the Court, the next president could easily appoint the fifth vote to kill Roe.

More importantly, while Coleman is correct that a shadow of Roe remains law today, it is simply false to suggest that Bush’s appointees did not succeed in significantly rolling back women’s reproductive freedoms. In their very first full term on the Court, Bush’s two appointees joined a 5-4 decision claiming abortion rights should be restricted because “some women come to regret” their own choices .. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SCOTUS.pdf .. when they are allowed to make them. If President Bush had not replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, this decision would have come down the other way .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenberg_v._Carhart .

As a recent Center for American Progress Action Fund report explains .. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/SCOTUS.pdf , Roe is just one of many precedents that is at risk in a Romney Supreme Court. By contrast, should President Obama replace one of the Court’s conservatives, the result could be a new renaissance for democracy, consumers and workers rights .. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/09/17/858871/five-scotus-cases-that-could-be-overruled-in-a-romney-court-and-five-that-could-be-overruled-under-obama/ :



http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/30/1110011/say-anything-top-romney-surrogate-claims-romney-justices-wont-kill-roe-v-wade/

See also:


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80860462

Screwed .. by Nancy L. Cohen [ excerpt ]

Priority number one on Romney’s Supreme Court agenda is to overturn Roe. He has said the decision was “one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history.” He has speculated, “If we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, and more justices like that,” Roe would be overturned, and he holds up those staunch conservatives as models for the kind of justice he would appoint. The 2012 Republican Party platform calls for a U.S. constitutional amendment to ban abortion even in cases of incest, rape and threat to the life of the mother. Romney himself has signed on to such extreme positions as outlawing abortion for rape victims and denying them emergency contraception. Ryan, a heartbeat from the Oval Office, believes that doctors who perform abortions to save a woman’s life should be prosecuted. Ryan’s message to a woman, say a rape victim, who has an abortion? “If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.”
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80828050

The New Yorker's very thorough endorsement of Obama's re-election: [ last bit ]

The choice is clear. The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama—and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act—takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.

The reëlection of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney—a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity. A two-term Obama Administration will leave an enduringly positive imprint on political life. It will bolster the ideal of good governance and a social vision that tempers individualism with a concern for community. Every Presidential election involves a contest over the idea of America. Obama’s America—one that progresses, however falteringly, toward social justice, tolerance, and equality—represents the future that this country deserves.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80778969

[ a bit ] Romney states that as president he “will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” But apparently Roberts no longer makes the cut.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77237197

Justice Scalia must resign .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77042883

Citizens United Attacks From Justice Stevens Continue


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76143315

Justices Bar Mandatory Life Terms for Juveniles [ snippet ]

The 5-to-4 decision divided the court along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the four members of the liberal wing. Justice Kennedy also provided the decisive vote in two other decisions issued Monday — on Arizona’s immigration law .. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration-and-emigration/arizona-immigration-law-sb-1070/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier .. and on a sequel to the court’s decision in the Citizens United campaign finance case. .. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76992139

arizona1 and Stephanie, and all -- something I've pointed to repeatedly -- all 4 of the Federalists, Roberts, Scalia,
Alito and Thomas, should be summarily impeached, convicted and thrown out on their butts ..
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=56678331

Americans .. please ..

Richard Mourdock’s Extremist Views Are Shared by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80954690

reelect Obama .. YOU CAN DO IT! .. you can .. LOL .. you will .. ya better anyway .. :)