An immigration puzzle

I think I must be missing something obvious, but for the life of me, I can’t figure out why so many people sneak across the border– especially those who pay coyotes to smuggle them across. Wouldn’t a much safer (and cheaper) method simply be (a) getting a passport, (b) coming across the border at a manned crossing point, and (c) simply disappearing once you’re in? I know some people must do this already, but why isn’t it the predominant method?

Needlessly unnecessary

In today’s blockbuster Supreme Court opinion, Zuni Public School District v. Department of Education, Justice Stevens notes in his concurrence that “the legislative history is pellucidly clear.” What a pointless redundancy. Is the universe hugely big? Is the platypus strangely odd? Am I awesomely cool? It’s the usage version of typing in all caps.

An unreasonable raid

It astonishes and saddens me that, for this story about a violent raid on a legal immigrant family by federal immigration agents, the reporters could only find one (white) neighbor to express his outrage. Every other interviewee seems to express a savage satisfaction at the raid, even though their complaints against the immigrant family — excessive noise, a messy front yard, etc. — seem both unfounded and unrelated to whatever larger concerns they may have about illegal immigration.

I hope that the problem here is just selective reporting. If not, then the story can most charitably be read as one about an extremely uptight community willing to use any means necessary — including police raids — to enforce local expectations of quiet and orderliness. There are, of course, much uglier interpretations.

Snap!

An administrative note: At some point (I don’t know when), WordPress decided it would be fun to implement Snap Preview Anywhere on its blogs. I’ve taken the liberty of disabling this “feature” for this site. If you disagree, please give me five minutes to explain why Snap Preview Anywhere is a blight upon the face of the Internet. Thanks!

U.S. attorneys

The drama over the dismissals of several U.S. attorneys continues. The latest brouhaha: the White House has attempted to spin the dismissals as the result of poor performance, but most of these U.S. attorneys recently received glowing performance reviews from DOJ.

Here is where I get confused. We’re suffering through an administration that has felt no qualms whatsoever claiming executive power to do all sorts of questionable things: wage war, detain “suspected terrorists,” spy on American citizens, etc. And yet, in an area — executive officer appointments — where the President’s whim is the law, the administration whips out a lame excuse that isn’t even supportable. I don’t get it. (Or are we in Bizarro World?)

Undoing the Reformation in England?

Churches back plan to unite under Pope:

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.

The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.

If this happens, I don’t know how much of an impact it will actually have… but as a matter of historical significance, it’s huge. Queen Mary and the Spanish Armada– now just temporary setbacks?

Cross-cultural marriage rates falling

According to USA Today:

The USA’s growing diversity is cooling the melting pot in at least one way: marriage across racial and ethnic lines.

The share of Hispanics and Asians married to whites dropped between 1990 and 2000 after two decades of steady growth, new research shows.

The sheer number of immigrants who arrived last decade has made it more likely for them to marry among themselves, according to findings published this month in American Sociological Review.

The article does note that this trend is likely to reverse itself once the more recent immigrants have kids, as those kids will be more likely to marry across group lines.  The sooner, the better– as always, I’m troubled by non-permeable community boundaries within the U.S.

Forever young

The parents of a daughter suffering from static encephalopathy, a form of severe mental disability, have had her undergo surgery so that she will always be child-like for the rest of her life. (She is expected to have a fairly normal lifespan, with appropriate care.) Their rationale:

Ashley will be a lot more physically comfortable free of menstrual cramps, free of the discomfort associated with large and fully-developed breasts, and with a smaller, lighter body that is better suited to constant lying down and is easier to be moved around.

Ashley’s smaller and lighter size makes it more possible to include her in the typical family life and activities that provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love: meal time, car trips, touch, snuggles, etc. Typically, when awake, babies are in the same room as other family members, the sights and sounds of family life engaging the baby’s attention, entertaining the baby. Likewise, Ashley has all of a baby’s needs, including being entertained and engaged, and she calms at the sounds of family voices. Furthermore, given Ashley’s mental age a nine and a half year old body is more appropriate and more dignified than a fully grown female body.

I am usually a strongly opininated person, but for once I have no idea how I feel about this.

Depressing stories

There are days when every story suggests that the world is going to hell. Here are just two.

Hussein has become a martyr due to his stately presence during his humiliating execution. Wasn’t this man supposed to be a non-factor? According to the article, he was — but not anymore.

The first U.S. citizen born in 2007 has been denied a $25,000 scholarship because her mother is not a legal resident. Whatever you think about illegal immigration, and whatever the legality of this decision, you cannot be happy at the ugly tone of this story, which pits a Chinese family against a black family (whose baby won the prize instead). “She’s an American all the way,” says the grandmother of the winning baby. Then, referring to the losing baby’s mother: “If she’s an illegal alien, that makes the baby illegal.” (The baby is, of course, an American citizen.) Racial minority against racial minority, and a vicious note of xenophobia: what an unhappy new year.

UPDATE: Maybe there’s hope after all: the baby is getting her scholarship.

Two grammar/style questions

1. You can say, “I’m a big fan of Metallica.” Can you also say, “I’m a big fan of Metallica’s”? Is the latter sentence only appropriate if it’s understand what property of Metallica you’re referring to (e.g., “I’m a big of Metallica’s [music]“)?

Related question: How come “I’m a big fan of hers” seems vastly more popular (and correct) than “I’m a big fan of her”? Is “I’m a big fan of hers” related to “I’m a big fan of Metallica’s”?

2. How do you format smiley faces that are adjacent to parentheses? E.g.: “I’m bringing a friend. (I hope you don’t mind. :))”

Is the closing parenthesis necessary? Should there be a space between the smiley face and the parenthesis? (Two parentheses look double-chinned, don’t they?) Does the answer change if the smiley face is facing left rather than right (like this (:)?

(Are there more important questions in the world? Yes — see the first one. :) )