An Immigration Case and Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court is heard oral arguments on US v Sineneng-Smith last Tuesday. The case involves the convictions of a woman mail fraud and inducing illegal immigration. The woman billed illegal immigrants $6,800 to file paperwork for an expired pathway to legal residence.  Two of her victims has also testified that, but for the woman’s efforts and billings, they would have left the US otherwise.  That last formed the basis of the woman’s conviction of inducing illegal immigration.

The 9th Circuit struck the second conviction, holding the law unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

In the course of those oral arguments, came this item of primary interest, at least to me:

Justice Stephen Breyer noodled the idea of narrowing the law so “it is limited to solicitation of a crime.”

That may or may not be a useful thing to do, but it’s for the political branches of our Federal government to legislate, not for the judicial branch. Leave it to a…liberal…Justice to think it’s OK to modify a law from the bench.

“Should Government Halt the Use of Facial-Recognition Technology?”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal ran one of its point-counterpoint debates over the weekend; this one treating the topic in this post’s title.

The debaters focused on the error rate of the technology and whether that was a big deal or a little one; although there was passing mention of civil liberty problems.

I say the question is over-broad.

Government should not only halt its own use of facial recognition software; it should be statutorily barred from it. We haven’t, yet, been overrun by the People’s Republic of China. The civil liberty—the individual liberty—matter is much too serious to be glossed over, and this is one venue where the line is better drawn at zero rather than trusting Government (which is to say, the men of Government) to go this far but no farther.

The question of its commercial use is a separate one from Government’s use or not use. This question should have a market answer, arrived at by customers and the businesses with which we interact.

No VoTech in Public Schools

Posted on by
Reply

That seems to be the cry of those who object to a potential requirement that students should learn to code by the time they graduate from high school.

The Wall Street Journal ran another of its point-counterpoint debates, this time on the subject of learning coding—the rudiments of  programming—over the weekend.

Supporters argue

The idea is that such a skill will be invaluable in a world that increasingly runs on computer technology. What’s more, many companies report shortages of workers with programming skills.

Detractors, in addition to crying crocodile tears over supporters having ties to industry, argue

adding a coding requirement for graduation is at odds with the very purpose of public education, and its focus on humanistic values.

Extend the detractors’ logic a skosh. It would seem they don’t want any form of Vocational-Technical classes in public education. Get rid of the VoTech classes in high school that would so prepare these students, with no desire for college, for earning their way in the workaday world (earning more than many college graduates). Get rid of VoTech classes in the public junior colleges, too—after all, these two-year colleges are only for the college-bound looking for a cheaper entry into college and for already working middle-aged adults looking to improve their business skills.

Extend the detractors’ logic a small bit further than that skosh. Computers are as ubiquitous a tool in today’s world as are pens, pencils, and keyboards. Knowing the rudiments of programming is as critical to getting along in the world—now especially for engineers and theoreticians (yes, including feminist studiers)—as is basic writing.  Maybe we should stop wasting grade school money on writing and junior and senior high school money on essay writing.  After all, we have computers for that.

Or, maybe those supporters have the better argument.

Two Political Contestants

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Ilhan Omar is up for reelection to our House of Representatives in Minnesota’s 5th District.  Dalia al-Aqidi is a Republican candidate for that seat and that office.  Some remarks by each are dispositive of their attitudes toward America and us fellow Americans.

Omar:

I am, Hijabi, Muslim, Black, Foreign born, Refugee, Somali[.]
Easily triggering conservatives, Right wing bloggers, anti Muslim bigots, tinfoil conspiracy theorists, birthers, pay me a [dollar] to bash Muslims fraudsters, pro-occupation groups and every single xenophobe since 2016.

Al-Aqidi:

I am an American[.]
I came to the US more than 25 years ago. So, basically, I’m not a refugee anymore. I’m not an Iraqi anymore. I’m an American. Period[.]

The distinction couldn’t be starker, or the choice clearer.

Progressive-Democrats’ Tuesday Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Some are calling it rowdy; others say raucous.  There’s this more concrete description, too, from Tony Katz:

Everyone else is talking to each other, yelling at each other, yelling at the moderators, yelling at the guy in the rafters….

And talking over each other, interrupting each other, trying to drown out each other. Recall the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates—they were rowdy, often rude, as participants occasionally interrupted or tried to talk over each other.  Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat debate was nothing but a constant rolling drumbeat of that.

I have a different take on that debate from “some,” “others,” and Katz.

This debate was a clear and present demonstration of Progressive-Democrats’ view of free speech.  Their interruptions and talkings-over were not occasional, nor were they done in the heat of the moment, for all the zeal of their arguments.

No, their interruptions and talkings-over were demonstrative of their attitude toward the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.  What any particular Progressive-Democrat decides he has to say is the only thing worth hearing.  What others have to say—are already saying—is just too trivial, too unimportant to waste time on; the new speaker will just start talking, and those others should just shut up.

It’s of a piece with one of them insisting that the others should drop out of the primaries altogether and get out of his way.

Tuesday’s verbal melee also was demonstrative of their views of us in the audience and in TV viewer-land.  Progressive-Democrats will tell us what we should hear; they will tell us what we will be permitted to hear. We’re wholly unfit to decide that for ourselves.

And that’s what they’ll inflict on our free speech rights if they gain the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Freedom’s just another word for “Shut up; I’m talking.”