One of two measures that make up what’s referred to as the California Dream Act was released from suspense in a state Senate committee today, and is expected to go to the Senate floor next week for a vote. But unlike AB 130, a companion bill that was recently signed into law, the bill known as AB 131 faces slimmer odds of success.
Both measures aim to make it easier for undocumented college students to pay tuition. AB 130 allowed these students access to previously unavailable privately funded scholarships. AB 131 would grant them access to publicly funded financial aid, the same kind of financial aid now available to students who are U.S. citizens and legal residents. Although undocumented students can qualify for in-state tuition if they meet state residency requirements, they are still barred from public financial aid programs, such as Cal Grants.
[…] Unlike the federal Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, neither of the California bills proposes a path to legal status.
(CNN) — A federal appeals court on Monday affirmed a previous injunction of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, another setback for legislation that has drawn sharp opposition from President Barack Obama’s administration.
In its ruling, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with the U.S. Justice Department and against Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure known as SB 1070 into law last year.
….if you support replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the 20 Dollar Bill.
With the history of the Trail of Tears, Andrew Jackson’s position on the 20 dollar bill is just another example of oppression in America. After the genocide of thousands of Native Americans, I feel as if Andrew Jackson has no place on our currency. How would the Jews feel if Hitler was on the 20 dollar bill?
Besides the most serious matter, Andrew Jackson’s spoils system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system), abuse of presidential powers, and ownership of slaves show a severe lack of morals in the president, something that should not be rewarded - and something American’s should not aspire to be.
Harriet Tubman deserves to take this spot for several reasons. But rather than to treat the subject exhaustively, here’s 3 quality reasons:
1) The Founding Father’s fought against oppression and established the basic American ideology of freedom. (Even though they did hypocritically oppress minorities and the lower class, they still initiated the ideology, we can leave that for another post). Harriet Tubman exemplifies this American ideology. She fought not only for her freedom but for the freedom of others as well.
2) She was a spy for the Union in the Civil War, and was an essential figure to the Union victory. I’m sure we can all argue that if the Union did not win the Civil War our country would be vastly different and backwards today. Her contributions to the Union and the subsequent abolition of slavery have placed her as a national icon - a true American hero.
3) All faces on American currency are Caucasian Male. America, the melting pot, should not be represented by one demographic. For most of history (and I would argue it still continues today) women and minorities have been oppressed and made to feel lesser, and Harriet Tubman’s presence would not only represent a good portion of the United States populace but also serve as a symbol of pride for the oppressed.
Harriet Tubman’s contributions to this nation should be recognized on a higher level, Thomas Jefferson’s genocidal acts should not be rewarded, and as a country it is time to eliminate the racial divide and include prominent minority figures on our currency. ricans, I feel as if…
Wish I thought of this! You know I love Tubman…
Fantastic idea. I would love to see that happen. And imagine all the ridiculous complaints white people would have…
Yes, all the faces on our money are white, but it’s tradition! Just like the part of the pledge of allegiance which says “under God!”
It’s not MY fault as a 21st century white person that no black person was president until now!
We should only have presidents on the money, damn it (except a couple of other dudes who happen to be white)!
And whatever, we already put Sacagawea on a coin so I feel we’ve done enough respecting of minorities and making up for this Andrew Jackson thing!
Now they’re just being racist against white people!
SB 1611, set for hearing this afternoon, also would put companies that do not use a federal database to check the status of new workers out of business. And it would require cities to evict anyone in public housing who cannot prove legal presence in this country.
But Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, framed the legislation as not doing much at all.
“This is clean-up,” he told Capitol Media Services.
“All it does is do what the voters have passed in terms of no taxpayer dollars for illegals,” Pearce said. “It just ties it up.”
The Appropriations Committee also will debate SB 1308 and 1309 which together are designed to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in this country, and SB 1405 which would prohibit hospitals from providing non-emergency care to illegal immigrants and require officials to call federal immigration authorities.
Pearce said SB 1611 is not challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which forbids schools from refusing to enroll students who cannot prove they are legal U.S. residents. But he said nothing in the ruling prohibits schools from asking, as long as no student is turned away for failing to provide the documentation.
“We’re just counting citizens,” Pearce said.
But the effect could be the same.
Under current law, parents need provide only some proof of a child’s age, such as a certified copy of a birth certificate. But nothing requires that birth certificate be from the United States.
SB 1611 alters that list, with a parent now having to provide a birth certificate from U.S. states or territories, a U.S. passport, a certificates of naturalization or one of several other documents.
What could make it a deterrent is existing law which says if a parent doesn’t provide the document — in this case, one of the new documents — the school is required to notify law enforcement.
The language governing universities and community colleges is more clear cut.
Current law says those who cannot prove legal presence in this country cannot get the discounted tuition available to Arizona residents. But they may enroll if they pay the full out-of-state tuition and fees.
SB 1611 would preclude their admission entirely. Pearce said it is irrelevant that the fees these students are paying may help keep tuition down for Arizona residents.
“They can’t be employed” in this country, Pearce said, making their education not a benefit to Arizona. And he disputed the contention that out-of-state tuition covers the full cost of educating students at universities or community colleges.
The section aimed at employers is designed to put teeth into a 2007 law allowing a state judge to suspend or revoke the business licenses of firms found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
proof of these acusations please.
Please excuse me as I laugh myself to sleep
I guess you think painting on black face isn’t racist.
I dont at all, and I bet it wasn’t intended to be either. Everyone’s just fucking overreacting to get their bullshit statements out. This is worse then when people said she had a penis.
so now if somebody paints black on their face and is a white person that automatically makes them racist?! wow, that’s just pathetic.
I am honestly unsure what to say to people who don’t understand that, yes, painting black face on makes someone a racist. This isn’t some new thing people just invented. Black face has ALWAYS been offensive. It will always be offensive. It’s disgusting. And if you honestly painted your face black and somehow didn’t realize that you were a huge racist douchebag, your intention would still NOT matter. Actions speak a hell of a lot louder. Painting your face black or posing for pictures with people who are in blackface, is a RACIST action.
Aside from which “chola” and “orient” are being used in the song? Come the fuck on. I guess you don’t understand why that’s offensive either.
What’s actually “pathetic” is the level of ignorance and white privilege you’ve both got going on.
Blackface is offensive according to the one who is judging. But, as I said in another post, the blackface itself is not offensive, is a representation of something.
You cannot just start thinking Gaga is racist because of her “blackface” photos. She was using the tanned skin as a fashion resource.
I know actions do communicate, but- oh dear, she wasn’t even that black. Looks tanned, not black.
Actually, I was referring to this, but thanks for telling me what I can and cannot think is racist.
Blackface is not sometimes offensive and sometimes okay. Much like straight people using the word faggot is not sometimes okay, and white hipster girls wearing headdresses is not sometimes okay (because it’s for fashion!). Wearing blackface is creating a caricature of another race. That’s what blackface represents. It is most associated with minstrel shows, which featured white people stereotyping black people as lazy, stupid, objects of humor. It’s exploitative and fucking degrading.
You apparently think white people can what, “take back” blackface and use it as some fun fashion statement now? No. Just no.
I get that a lot of gay people think the sun shines out of Lady Gaga’s ass; and it’s nice that she wants to support the gay community, it really is. But as a person of influence, as a person who wants to represent LGB people, she needs to be held responsible for her actions, her words, and her image. The use of racist and ethnic slurs like “chola” and “orient,” the use of blackface in a photoshoot or on your entourage as some kind of statement… these things are never okay. Supporting the gay community doesn’t mean a whole heck of a lot to me if you’re wearing blackface while you’re doing it. Thanks but no thanks.
Thanks for your time writting that. Basically, my disagreement is that I’m less serious about her racism acts because I believe everyone makes mistakes and, since the “proofs” are not declarations, all we can get are conclusions.
I haven’t seen that photo before - still, you totally missed my point / or your sarcasm is confusing me.
When I said “Blackface is offensive according to the one who is judging” I was telling you can think she’s racist because you find it offensive, but it doesn’t means she IS racist.
I don’t have anything agains you thinking she’s racist - of course, when I said that she used it as a fashion resource I was talking about the magazine photos and not that one you just showed me.
The blackface, without context, represents the face of someone in our mind - it’s the idea of the physical aspect of someone (this far is not racist already, right? since there’s nothing wrong in having big eyes, big lips and black skin).
Well, ok the proper word is not represent (english is not my mother language). My mistake. I should have said that the blackface is a recreation of the face of someone. AND OF COURSE most of the people associate it with negative stuff. That’s why most of the people avoid it.
Is like when people avoid using this symbol. I personally think the best is NOT wearing it, but- if you were it, it doesn’t make you a bad person. Maybe an insensible one.
Same with Gaga.
I don’t think it’s a fun fashion statement. As I said it’s the first time I saw that photo. For the magazine photos, of course I think tanned skin can be used as a fashion thing - but I didn’t take the magazine photos or maked up Gaga. I was saying it’s a fashion resource (down’t matter if I like it or not).
And for the photo, Gaga and the other guys wearing the blackface - it depends.
I don’t like racism, but I wouldn’t mind taking a photo with my friends if they were like that. At the end, I know I’m not racist, and I don’t know what they mean by making up like that. I don’t find blackface fun, but in the other hand I find fictional violence fun, as well as black humor. I think that, as long as stuff don’t get too serious, these forms of having fun are ok.
At the end, I agree with you that she should be more responsible about her image. That’s something that makes me think she’s “real” and not “plastic” - if this whole sopporting the LGBT community were JUST a comercial strategy, then SOMEONE would have told her “that’s bad”, “that could make people think you hate them” and blah blah.
You and I are not going to come to an agreement because we seem to have very different standards on what is acceptable and what is racist. If there were absolutely no history to painting one’s face black, then I would agree with you. But the fact is that there is. And since people know the history of it, it IS racist to do it. And there is no way that Lady Gaga is unaware of that history.
If any friend of mine were wearing blackface, not only would I not be taking a photo with them, I would be telling them off and then ending our friendship. That’s how unacceptable something like this is.
I can’t believe that you actually think wearing a swastika would be a mere judgment error, and not deeply, deeply offensive and hurtful. That symbol represents the genocide of millions of people. You are taking a very simplistic view of symbols and seem to advocate accepting them without context, if I understand you right. But we’re talking about symbols that hurt people. These things have meaning because we have ascribed meaning to them, and the meaning of things like the swastika or blackface are too ingrained now to be discounted. They can never be worn in a context-less bubble. And wearing things like this DOES make you a bad person, to put it simply. If you wear something that you know has a history like this and you don’t care about that history, or the way that it’s going to make someone else feel, you’re certainly not a good person. And in the case of blackface, yes, it DOES make you a racist. If you take a racist symbol, and you choose to wear it, or you condone wearing it among your friends or entourage or whoever those people are, you are condoning the message of it. You cannot wear blackface or a swastika ironically.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a public hearing today on a bill that would require hospitals to check patients’ immigration status. Senate Bill 1405 would require hospitals to confirm an individual is a legal resident before admitting him or her for non-emergency care. The hospital would have to notify federal immigration officers if the individual was not in the country legally. The bill would allow hospitals to provide emergency care to illegal immigrants, but it would require them to report the individuals once the care was completed. Hospitals that failed to comply with the law could be sued.
This is just about the most appalling thing I’ve read in a long time. Women who are hemorrhaging, or who have been beaten or who have sick children use hospitals too. And people wonder how that fucked up shit in Philly could happen.
This is in Arizona, if you couldn’t guess. This is beyond sickening.
Williams-Bolar is a teacher’s assistant in Akron, and was enrolled in college studying to become a teacher. During her four-day trial earlier this month, she said she wanted her children to be in a safe environment. Now, her residential status with the public housing authority is in question. Also, her conviction on felony charges means she would need approval to work with public school children, said Akron City Council President Marco Sommerville, who has been working to assist the family. “We’re hoping to work it all out. We’re asking how you can kick someone out of public housing whose children were not allowed to continue school in another area because they didn’t live there?” Sommerville told BlackAmericaweb.com. “It may be that they’ll want to adjust her rent if the children don’t live with her,” he said.
FUCKING SHIT. FUCKING SSSSSSHITT FUCKING SHIT FUCKING SHIT. You see that up there? That little sentence thrown in there?????? SHE MAY LOSE HER HOME.
THIS IS WHITE FUCKING SUPREMACY. THIS IS HETEROPATRIARCHY. THIS IS CLASSISM. THIS IS NATIONALISM.
Oh what the FUCK.
This whole thing. This whole fucking thing.