PopSugar

Why Are People So Anti-Katie Couric?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:45:42 -0700

It's almost impossible to find pro-Katie news out there recently - now it seems she might be in a couple of pots of hot water. Civil rights groups are on the anchor's case after the news program she helms ran what they're calling a report that was inaccurate and crass - and much like something they say Lou Dobbs would run.

Politico says this of the controversy:

The CBS newscast that carries her name recently aired a one sided and inaccurate report about illegal immigrant women who give birth to their children in the United States. The news story challenged the broader constitutional law of birthright citizenship and stated - without providing the correct context - that the births cost US taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

View 5 Photos ›

The original report makes this claim though a series of questions and answers from two different people that suspiciously arranges the information to prove the argument. Take a peek and see if you think it's one sided and innaccurate.

Given new reports out that show CBS Evening News's ratings are the lowest they've been in the history of ratings, is reporting like this to blame? How did the Today show darling tank the news? Are people just inexplicably anti-Katie?

Source

US Lifts HIV/AIDS Travel Ban

TresSugar — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:00:00 -0700

For the last 22 years, foreign citizens living with HIV or AIDS have been forbidden to legally enter the US. As of Monday, that ban will be a thing of the past. On Friday, President Obama announced the decision to overturn the policy he called "rooted in fear rather than fact." He said:

"We talk about reducing the stigma of this disease - yet we've treated a visitor living with it as a threat. We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the AIDS pandemic - yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people from HIV from entering our own country. If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/AIDS, we need to act like it."

Before this decision, the US joined a less-than-impressive list of countries that banned HIV-positive outsiders. The list still includes: Armenia, Colombia, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sudan, and Yemen. Considering there are already Americans living with HIV/AIDS, it served little purpose to "quarantine" the country. I'm happy to see that our HIV/AIDS prevention strategies will no longer include an ineffective and discriminatory ban.

Top Official: Burqa Not Part of France's "National Identity"

TresSugar — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:00:00 -0700

Cheese. Wine. Baguettes. These are all seemingly welcomed signifiers of French identity. Burqas? Not so welcome.

France has been debating a ban on the head-to-toe garment for some time now. Most recently, the country's immigration minister Eric Besson said yesterday that burqas should not be worn on French streets because they are not part of the country's "national identity."

Besson wants the government to reaffirm national pride by having a "great debate" about what it means to be French. With more than five million Muslims living in France (the largest Muslim population in Western Europe), doesn't French identity include Muslim traditions? It sounds like Besson, who was born in Morocco, disagrees. Based on his previous statements, being French means speaking better French if you're an immigrant and having more opportunities to sing the national anthem if you're a kid in school.

Do you think the French government has a right to dictate dress codes under the guise of "maintaining tradition," or should it be more accepting of minority and immigrant group influences? Would you worry if US officials organized a meeting to decide what it means to be American?

PETA Warning to Border Crossers: US Burgers Will Kill You

CitizenSugar — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:15:22 -0700

Like the Minutemen, another controversial group who has erected signs at the border between the US and Mexico, PETA has a billboard all cooked up and aimed at the migrating population heading across the border. The PETA placard has a stronger message than "we keep this road clean" - the animal rights superadvocates want immigrants to cross over, and cross meat off their shopping list.

PETA is asking the government to let them rent space on the border fence proclaiming to the new arrivals: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will - Go Vegan."

Now I'm as vegan as the next. . . vegan, but the PETA campaigns can be let's say, less than subtle. To see what they're planning for this campiagn, read more.

The proposed billboard (which is presented to the Border Patrol today) will show a picture of a fit Mexican eating local food, and a picture of an obese immigrant gorging on meaty American fast food. A PETA spokesperson says, "we think that Mexicans and other immigrants should be warned if they cross into the US they are putting their health at risk by leaving behind a healthier, staple diet of corn tortillas, beans, rice, fruits, and vegetables."

The government is expected to block the billboards because they will hamper visibility through the fence, compromising safety. One resident on the border whose ranch will be bisected by the new fence says the government should take the money - and adds that the message "might even be frightening enough to deter people from crossing into the US."

Between PETA advertising for immigrant health, and LA banning new fast-food restaurants for a year, is this all part of a big effort for a greater good - or are we focusing resources in the wrong place?

Source

Iowa's Citizens Tell Congressmen to Lay Off Immigration Raids

CitizenSugar — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:00:52 -0700

About 1,000 Iowans marched in protest yesterday over working conditions at the same meatpacking plant in Iowa where an immigration raid this Spring that led to the arrest of almost 400 people. The incident has left local residents pleading with their congressmen to stop with the raids. This weekend residents told their representatives that the sweep damaged the small town more than it helped, and tore families apart.

The raid was the largest of its kind in US history, and the testimony over the weekend showed the huge emotional toll it took on the community. Those testifying both skewered immigration officials and Homeland Security for inhumane tactics, and leveled criticism at the plant for taking advantage of the workers.

At the end of the hearing, Rep. Gutierrez agreed, "This is wrong. We've taken men and women who want to work and made felons out of them." One local union official said the blame would be better placed with the owners who hired and took advantage of the workers rather than the illegal workers themselves, "the family that owns that place, they're the ones who should be prosecuted."

The mayor issued the definitive statement, and urged them to take the message back to Washington that raids don't work, "this raid did nothing for this community. It downgraded us substantially. It caused people to suffer, and it caused our reputation to suffer clear across the country."

Is he right? Do immigration raids do more harm than good?

Source

The Minutemen Adopt-a-Highway - Allowed to Keep It Clean?

CitizenSugar — Mon, 12 May 2008 12:15:12 -0700

When the San Diego Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group known for taking border patrol laws into their own hands became a member of Adopt-a-Highway (the keep-it-clean volunteer road service) they were quite surprised by the stretch of highway they were given. Their assigned turf was near a Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate 5, a main route known for carrying illegal migrants into the United States from Mexico.

The state however has since decided to remove the sign crediting their litter patrolling. They fear demonstrators or vandals would create a safety hazard along the highway - as well as fearing harm to the Minutemen who would be clearing litter on that stretch. To see their response, read more.

The Minutemen contend otherwise. Their attorney said, “we can’t have our free speech because if we do, people who don’t like it might become unruly and unlawful.” And made a more pointed accusation by saying, “we were moved to silence our message in response to pressure from the open border advocates and the Latino caucus.” The US District Judge appeared to agree with the Minutemen on that point. “It would seem you’re saying you’re allowing the people who are unhappy with the message to dictate who can be in the program.”

The Adopt-a-Highway has had another controversial patron in the past. In 2005, the Ku Klux Klan adopted a stretch in Missouri and when the Adopt-a-Highway group tried to discontinue their membership, the Supreme Court sided with the KKK despite the Adopt-a-Highway’s regulation prohibiting groups that deny membership with a documented history of violence. State legislators - to contrast the image of a hate-based group advertising on publicly-owned land - renamed the length of highway adopted by the KKK, the Rosa Parks Highway.

In the Minutemen's case, the lawyer for the state said that the Adopt-a-Highway signs are just a "thank-you" from the state, not political messages protected under the First Amendment. If the Minutemen are doing the work of keeping the road clean, are they entitled to a sign? Was the state right to remove the sign before it caused trouble? Should controversial groups be allowed to volunteer - and get credit?

Source

Advertising for Illegal Immigrants and Big Government Bucks

CitizenSugar — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:00:33 -0700

In an odd, having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too sort of parallel of stories, illegal immigration has hit the city of San Francisco in a confusing way. The city is both actively advertising for illegal immigrants, and under audit for taking millions of dollars of federal money to combat border crimes.

The problem with the dough? San Francisco is 500 miles from any border, and beat out all four states bordering Mexico for banking the most cash. The city has received $5.4 million since 2004 to help secure their "border," and the federal audit found that found the city was not entitled to any of the funds.

What's a great story to balance this? How about the $83,000 ad campaign launched last week trumpeting the city's amnesty status and inviting all to come on aboard? To see the details of their "Got Immigrants?" campaign, read more.

The ad campaign just launched shows images of smiling residents and the iconic city skyline and spreads the message in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian.

Partially prompted by a series of federal immigration raids, the ads aim to promise safe access to city services for the undocumented and a look-the-other-way policy when it comes to residency status. Mayor Gavin Newsom said of the campaign, "We are standing up to say to all of our residents: We don't care what your status is. We care that you, as a human being, are a resident of our city and we want you to participate in the life of our city."

Of course not all illegal immigrants commit crimes, but advertising a hands-off policy while pulling in all kinds of government loot to prosecute immigration crimes? The city can't explain it either, issuing no answer as to why a city 500 miles from a border would have prosecuted more than 2,000 cases for the federal government that were related to drug gangs and crimes near the border in a three-year period, and they've been silent on the money too.

Should a city be allowed to herald its amnesty status? Do you think it's an admirable and humane example to follow? What about all that money - do you think the two are related?

Source

304,000 US Prisoners Eligible For Deportation

LibertySugar — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:00:09 -0700

304,000 criminals sitting in US jails are eligible for deportation. The problem? It will cost $2 billion a year to find them and deport them. Immigrant convicts, whether legal or illegal, must serve out their sentences in the US before they are deported.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to find a way to streamline the process. By connecting the FBI's records with antiterrorism and immigration records of the Homeland Security Department, it believes that state, county, and federal prisons will have an easier time identifying and deporting immigrants convicted of the most serious crimes. Immigration lawyers worry that untrained law enforcement officers may get a little deportation happy and focus on immigrants who committed minor violations that do not warrant deportation. Why is it so complicated? To find out, read more.

An elaborate maze of bureaucracies makes it easy for dangerous individuals to remain in the US. Think of all the parties involved: counties, states, the FBI, Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the municipal, state, and federal courts. Having too many departments may actually hinder them from carrying out their purpose!

According to these figures, it costs about $7,000 for each criminal deportation. Plus think of the cost of making sure they serve the punishments before sending them back. Do you think this is money well spent? Is it important to you to make sure dangerous illegal immigrants are sent packing?

Source

Abused Women May Be Able to Seek Asylum in the US

TresSugar — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:00:00 -0700

Women don't have a single nationality or a common religion, but they do make up a defined group regularly subjected to domestic and sexual abuse. Yesterday, the Obama administration paved the way for women who are victims of severe abuse to receive asylum in the United States.

The administration signaled the policy change in its court filing in the case of a Mexican woman who is currently seeking asylum. The woman (who is known as "L.R.") says that her common law husband raped her at gunpoint, held her captive, and tried to burn her alive when he found out she was pregnant. L.R. maintains that if she were to be sent back to Mexico, she could be killed.

In its filing with the court, the Obama administration said that a woman such as L.R. should be granted asylum if she meets existing conditions for asylum and shows not only that her abuser views women as subordinate but also that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in her home country.

Do you think women who meet such conditions should be allowed to stay in the US, or do you worry that this policy will worsen the already overwhelmed US immigration situation?

Masochist President Obama Prepares to Tackle Immigration

CitizenSugar — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:30:50 -0700

With unemployment on the rise, President Obama is not shying away from America's immigration problem.

Obama will soon get started on a plan that will likely include a pathway to citizenship for the 12 million illegal immigrants living within America's borders. George W. Bush tried to do the same thing, but his comprehensive reform went down in Republican opposition. Obama faces an even tougher climate, since Americans are more concerned with losing their jobs to immigrants thanks to the recession.

Obama will frame his agenda as "policy reform that controls immigration and makes it an orderly system." Let's see if he can keep the debate process orderly.

Obama will start his policy push in May, and gather bipartisan groups to discuss legislation. The hope is to introduce a bill in Congress this Fall.

Do you think people are ready for reform?

Source