Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman hates illegal immigrants, especially pregnant women.

Gov. Heineman really does not want any “anchor babies” in his state:

Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman vetoed a proposal to restore Medicaid-funded prenatal care for illegal immigrants on Friday, but the initiative could still survive if the state legislature rejects his move next week.

And, what is his reasoning?

Heineman, who is anti-abortion, also said he had “grave concerns” that some funding could go to abortion provider Planned Parenthood and that Nebraska could become a sanctuary for illegal immigrants because no bordering states offered similar coverage.

Let’s go over that again: he’s vetoing Medicaid coverage for prenatal care for undocumented women, because Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care.

He doesn’t like abortion, but he also doesn’t want undocumented women having babies in his state, and he is afraid that if he does not join neighboring states in a race to the bottom, then additional money will end up with Planned Parenthood because they care about pregnant women and their eagerly awaited babies far more than Dave Heineman does.

 

More Congressdudes who hate women, especially those born in poorer countries.

Tim Murphy at Mother Jones gives us a fresh tally of Congressional GOPers who hate women, this time focusing on undocumented immigrants held in detention facilities where living conditions include high risk of sexual abuse by guards. The issue is that the Obama administration has new rules for ensuring that ICE facilities don’t brutalize their detainees quite so hard, and the House Committee on the Judiciary is now acting like we’re spoiling those lousy furriners like they’re actual people or something.

Lamar “Holiday on ICE” Smith (R-Texas) hates women!

Elton Gallegy (R-California) hates women!

Steve King (R-Iowa) fucking hates ALL those damn illegals!

We wouldn’t want America to be one of those countries that doesn’t suck in how it treats foreigners.

Arizona, please tell me you’re joking!

Tucson, what is that I don’t even.

Outrage was the response on Saturday to the news that Tucson schools banned books by the nation’s award winning Chicano, Latino and Native American authors.

What the? Do you need to have an Anglo surname and pale face to have your books allowed in the school system now?

But wait, it’s not just Tucson:

The decision to ban books follows the 4 to 1 vote on Tuesday by the Tucson Unified School District board to surrender to the State of Arizona, and forbid Mexican American Studies, rather than fight the state’s threat to extract millions of education dollars from Tucson schools if it continues ethnic studies.

The state of Arizona is threatening to pull education funds from school districts that continue ethnic studies? Why is it that I am appalled and yet no longer surprised?

This is cited from a Salon article by Jeff Biggers:

Other banned books include “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” by famed Brazilian educator Paolo Freire and “Occupied America: A History of Chicanos” by Rodolfo Acuña, two books often singled out by Arizona state superintendent of public instruction John Huppenthal, who campaigned in 2010 on the promise to “stop la raza.” Huppenthal, who once lectured state educators that he based his own school principles for children on corporate management schemes of the Fortune 500, compared Mexican-American studies to Hitler Jugend indoctrination last fall.

When you have elected as your state superintendent a guy who loses the argument via Godwin’s Law, Arizona, something has gone seriously wrong in your state’s cultural discourse.

 

We now return to our regularly scheduled snark.

I’m all finished talking about Iggy (or at least I’ve posted all the pictures I ever took of him), and there’s another 5 days until the next Sunday afternoon. Unless you want to see me use this blog as therapy and talk about how I was harassed almost daily by some of the neighborhood kids for more than half of my Peace Corps assignment (and you probably don’t want to hear about that), I’ll just have to go back to making fun of ignorant bigots.

For example, there’s this little nugget on Microaggressions, aka The Daily WTF:

“I hear these Spanish and Oriental kids speaking and I think they must speak English because they go to school and have to communicate with their teachers.”

Oh, for Pete’s sake.

First, there’s the matter of vocabulary. Do we still need to say this, in 2012? RUGS are Oriental, people are ASIAN. And when the perpetrator labels kids s/he obviously doesn’t know as “Spanish,” you should assume that most or all of the youngsters in question are not actually from Spain.

More importantly, this is the kind of complaint one only hears from monolingual Anglophones who’ve never visited another country. The issue is not that the Asian and Latin@ kids in question can’t speak English and therefore are not integrating into American society. The issue is that they can sometimes be heard speaking languages other than English.

It must be so, so difficult, to have to live in a country that allows people from non-Anglophone countries to immigrate and doesn’t force them to give up their native tongues altogether. It must be so uncomfortable to hear young people saying things you don’t understand, and demonstrating abilities that you don’t have. (I mean, they speak more than one language. Scary.) It must be so confusing to be reminded that other countries with other languages exist, and that people do not always stay where they were born.

How dare they.

 

Won’t someone please think of the Arizona Republicans!

Meghan McCain shows where her priorities are:

And when a flawed law is magnified through the prism of extreme partisan politics, it only looks worse. With President Obama calling the law “misguided” and the mainstream media painting Arizona out to be a rogue state, all it does is make people go to greater lengths to defend their position. I think unless you are from a border state and have actually seen firsthand the effects illegal immigrants have on your community, I don’t think you can truly appreciate the complexities of the problem and how it should be litigated.

In the end, the saddest part for me is that we are all losing with this immigration law. Arizona is being shown in a negative light in the media, and once again Hispanic voters in Arizona have yet another reason to distrust the Republican Party.

This is what white privilege looks like.

Her home state passes a law which effectively means that Latinos—including American citizens— can be pulled aside by police and forced to show legal documentation at any time they happen to be in a public place, and Ms. McCain—a daughter of wealthy, white, native Anglophone privilege, who has never experienced racial profiling, never worried about where her next meal is coming from, never faced the prospect of being unable to provide for her family in her native country, in short, never had to deal with the problems that face Latin American immigrants on a daily basis— is worried that white Arizonans look bad and Latinos don’t want to vote Republican.

As someone who lives in a non-border state and therefore, obviously, lives nowhere near any immigrants of dubious legal status, I am so very not impressed.

You made that cake, you eat it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8444360.stm

“If nothing is done, I think we will go back to where we were. We had people queuing up in our waiting area – all of them were just bogus marriage after bogus marriage.”

This phenomenon should come as no surprise.

If the institution of civil marriage is both uniquely privileged and easy to enter, there will be some people who enter into it insincerely.

If your country enjoys a standard of living that most of the world envies, then you will have foreigners attempting to enter your country. If you place restrictions on legal immigration, then you will see large numbers of illegal immigrants.

When legal immigration is difficult and marriage is easy, and there are a lot of people trying to gain legal entry into a particular country, there should be no surprise when some of those people use civil marriage to improve their immigration status.

This is the situation that wealthy countries have created. One of the benefits of civil marriage is to allow foreign spouses of citizens to gain legal resident status. There are vast numbers of people in a given country who are terrified at the prospect of being sent back to poverty, oppression, chaos or some combination thereof and live in fear of the authorities. It should be no surprise when they take the simplest route to citizenship. There shouldn’t be any surprise, either, if there are citizens of that country who can offer help, for a fee.

Unless wealthy countries are prepared to address the reasons why people immigrate illegally–and, let’s face it, what country is actually going to give up a ready pool of cheap labor when the economy is a perpetual obsession?–they will see sham marriages. They could make marriage more difficult for everyone–and deal with the uproar that follows. Or they could single out foreign nationals seeking marriage licenses for extra scrutiny, and prepare to deal with the racial discrimination and civil rights violation complaints that will rightly follow. They could try making civil divorce a lot more difficult for everyone, and thus reduce the appeal of a sham marriage, and then deal with the uproar that will follow from their native population.

Alternatively, they could accept that sham marriage is a fact of civil life in a world dominated by yawning inequality and rampant human rights abuse, and let people get on with their lives.

P.S. “Biometric checks”? Do I even want to know?