Archive for December, 2014

Editorial: Immigration action does too much and too little

........................................................................................................................................................................................

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. President Obamas sweeping order to free from the threat of deportation some 5 million illegal immigrants just resets the comprehensive immigration reform debate to zero at best. At worst, it could completely derail it at a time when a new set of lawmakers is due in Washington to try its hand.

Last month, the president announced executive action that would defer for three years the deportation of about 5 million of an estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants now living in the United States. The order applies mostly to people who have been in the country five years or more and have kids who are citizens. It also broadens a deferred action program for children brought to the U.S. illegally.

And while Obamas order may not be the type of amnesty the U.S. offered during the 1980s, when there were about 3 million illegal immigrants, it sends a message that it may still be worth it to enter the U.S. illegally or overstay a visa in the hopes of hitting the forgiveness period the next time a free pass of some sort is offered.

Already, the immigration plan is mired in questions.

Since Obama wont be president three years from now, what happens after his reprieve is up? Will the immigrants be booted out of the country after registering with the government and living openly? Since criminals do not qualify, will presenting documents to prove residency that include a fake or stolen Social Security number count as a crime? Are people who have children here but were unlucky enough to have been deported shortly before Obamas order simply out of luck?

Obamas order does nothing to recognize would-be immigrants who have played by the rules and are still waiting in line to enter the country through legal means. What kind of lesson should they take away?

Immigration reform is long overdue and lawmakers of both parties have kicked it down the road too long. But, after putting action off for six years himself for cynical political reasons including times when his political party controlled both houses of Congress Obamas move simply starts a process that may not last beyond early next year, when Republicans take control of the Senate.

It also underlines that he isnt serious about border security in the sense of preventing another wave of illegal immigration even if we have comprehensive reform and cant be trusted on that score. Because border security isnt simply about interdiction, its about consequences.

The new Congress should get serious about passing legislation that deals with the issue for all 11.7 million keeping U.S. interests at the forefront. Most Americans, and immigrants who would be affected by real reform, would likely prefer that to a temporary executive order.

Here is the original post:
Editorial: Immigration action does too much and too little

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats – Video


Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats
The Supreme Court is considering a case that might radically redefine what is considered a threat when made through digital media, with possible First Amendment ramifications. To talk about...

By: Jenn Reappropriate

See the original post here:
Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats - Video

Calling All Student Journalists

People across the country are using their First Amendment freedoms to respond to the results of the grand juries in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. They are speaking out to draw attention to issues including race, police brutality and the workings of our justice system. Whats happening in your town?Are you covering local events and protests for your school newspaper or magazine?

If so, please email your story to DigitalClassroom@newseum.org! We will consider sharing it on our blog and for possible inclusion in our Digital Classroom Civil Rights Media Map. The deadline is Fri. Dec. 12 at 11:00 EST.

To learn more about the protests, and how they relate to the First Amendment, be sure to read the following Newseum-produced story and blog post. We will look for stories that also discuss how the First Amendment has played a role in the actions in your town.

Be sure to include your name, grade, name of newspaper, publication date, and the name and email address of your faculty advisor to the newspaper.

We want to have the chance to share your story so Newseum blog readers across the nation-and around the world-can learn more about how students are reporting on this volatile issue. We look forward to reading your story!

View original post here:
Calling All Student Journalists

Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?

The case of a Pennsylvania teacher fired because of blog posts that criticized her own students has taken an interesting turn, as her lawyers claim viral Internet and television interest in the story protect her First Amendment rights.

The teacher, Philadelphias National Constitution Center is the first and only nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to the most powerful vision of freedom ever expressed: the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Daily, the Centers blog, offers smart commentary and conversation about constitutional issues in the news, drawing insights from Americas history and a variety of expert contributors., caused a quite a stir back in 2011 and became a national media figure. Munroe lost her job at a suburban Philadelphia public high school after writing a series of blog posts that called her students jerks, rat like and whiny, among other things.

Monroes attorneys filed a civil suit against the Central Bucks school district in 2012, seeking $5 million in damages. In late July 2014, a federal district court judge in Philadelphia ruled against Munroe. But her attorneys have appealed.

Third District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe only decided one of two questions presented in the lawsuit. Rufe said Munroes statements werent protected by the First Amendment under a test established in two Supreme Court cases, so she didnt need to decide if the statements directly caused her termination.

In 1968 in a Supreme Court decision calledPickering v. Board of Educationand a later decision from 2006,Garcetti v. Ceballos, a balancing test was set by the Court about public employee statements and the First Amendment.

Commonly known as the Pickering test, a plaintiff such as Munroe must prove that her First Amendment interests as a public employee, and also as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern outweigh her public employers need to promote efficient public services.

Judge Rufe found that in this case, Munroes speech, in both effect and tone, was sufficiently disruptive so as to diminish any legitimate interest in its expression, and thus her [First Amendment] expression was not protected.

Rufe stated that, although Munroe may have occasionally written as a private citizen on matters of public concern, she chose to do so in an opprobrious tone that was likely to generate a strong reaction from anyone connected with the school who read it.

Read more:
Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?

Round-up: Nyland earns quick support, First Amendment dispute at Everett school

December 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Nyland earns quick support across Seattle school system: In four months, interim Seattle superintendent Larry Nyland hasmanaged to earn support from many of the districts key players.The Seattle School Board will vote Wednesday on whether to extend his contact for two more years.

Seven biggest districts pledge to offer computer science (AP): The White House announced Monday that the seven largest school districts in the country are committing to make computer science a standard offering at high schools or middle schools. The College Board also announced a new course calledAP Computer Science Principles will debut in the fall of 2016.

First Amendment dispute over religious expression at Everett school (KUOW): A student at Cascade High School in Everett has filed a federal lawsuit against Everett Public Schools after he was suspended multiple times for passing out religious literature and preaching to other students. The student claims his First Amendment right to free speech was violated; the district said his actions were a significant disruption.

More headlines:

| More in News | Topics: round-up

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

Read the original here:
Round-up: Nyland earns quick support, First Amendment dispute at Everett school