kattaiioi
' Studies
consider a
nentsfor
1 the first rec {
President 4
aig.
major Eni
:a ll of joiiii
Peems on |
othing
Judicial 0
ret
wrci;
wsiness
‘I law that st;.
e a concora-;
s agreed witi
11 election!;
'ailing forik
11 for exte
md in favor
that “it is in
0 allow fris
use they fail:
:nt;
ice
ts elsewhere,
ed to workt
want to foct
ere are blot
I, designed
the Senate
idem and!
it the meetir
gent a
taria and tk
d their dipl
0 citing won
reased after
n in attach
•ct. 26 missik
e Al-Ri
coalition ani
als lived. Ore
killed and II
Jed.
Act granting citizenship to illegal aliens irresponsible and potentially dangerous
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Wednesday, November 5, 2003
DREAMing big
E veryone dreams,
whether they can recall
their dreams or not.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a
dream. REM’s Michael Stipe
claimed the eclectic lyrics of
“It’s the End of the World as
We Know It” were inspired
by a dream. Even Gary
Coleman had a dream to one
day live in a Sacramento
mansion. But Orrin Hatch, the Republican sen
ator from Utah, has a dream which would,
while extending U.S. citizenship to illegal
aliens, potentially grant them in-state tuition at
public universities throughout the country.
This is not a dream; it sounds like a nightmare.
Co-sponsored by California Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, Hatch’s bill, according to The
Washington Times, “would allow a six-year
grace period for illegal immigrants who grew
up in the United States and graduated from a
U.S. high school, during which they would be
exempt from deportation. If they finished two
years of college or served two years in the
military during that time, they could earn per
manent legal residence in the United States.”
Also, according to The Times, the bill would
allow states to grant illegal aliens in-state
tuition at public colleges.
If it sounds like the equivalent of home
steading for U.S. citizenship, it is.
One wonders how long it took the politi
cians to convert “give illegal aliens
benefits that most U.S. citizens
don’t receive” into the puffed-up,
heart-wrenching “Development,
Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors,” or DREAM, Act.
With pressing issues facing U.S.
citizens such as, say, a war on terror
and a soft economy, the irresponsibility
of this sort of legislation looms like a
murky cloud over the shoulder of Hatch
— and it stinks.
In a building paid for by U.S. taxpay
ers, and politicians salaried by U.S. citi
zens are writing legislation that has the
interests of illegal aliens at heart. Public offi
cials have no right to draft legislation, the tan
gibility of which — to the average U.S. citizen
— is so obscure as to be irrelevant. Legislation
allocating funds for studying the viscosity of
Heinz ketchup would be more responsible. At
least it’s an American company.
But, moving past the irresponsible existence
of the bill, one finds more foolishness: citizen
ship for military service. Given the arrest last
month of the Army’s Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, a
naturalized citizen and Arabic translator at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for illegally carrying
classified documents through Boston’s Logan
Airport, it would seem the military is having
enough trouble confirming the loyalties of its
own citizen soldiers.
Yet, Hatch and Feinstein would
like illegal aliens — those who have necessar
ily broken U.S. law — to serve equally along
side U.S. citizens as they then defend the laws
they have broken. Military service is a product
of citizenship, not a way to barter for it.
The DREAM Act would also repeal the fed
eral prohibition on granting illegal aliens in
state tuition to public colleges. In other words,
if one was from Mandeville, La., they would
potentially have to pay almost
twice as much as an illegal alien
would to come to A&M.
’“While I do not advocate
granting unchecked amnesty to
illegal immigrants,” Hatch
said, “I am in favor of pro
viding children — children
who did not make the
decision to enter the
United States illegally —
the opportunity to earn the
privilege of remaining here
legally.” By “earning”
Hatch must mean “doing
what you would normally do
anyway.”
Keep in mind, the bill
requires little more from
illegal aliens than what
they have been doing —
residing in the United
States. It is the United
States that has the
Cracie Arenas • THE BATTALION
responsibility to grant citizenship. It’s called
homesteading and while it worked to build
many states in this nation, it’s a disservice to
the idea of citizenship.
Instead of handing out citizenship, put the
responsibility on immigrants. Perhaps, as
Melissa Lazarin of the National Council of La
Raza argues, “these young people were
brought here by their parents, went to school
here, speak English and consider this their
country and essentially aren’t able to demon
strate that.”
Of course, the DREAM Act fails to men
tion any consequences imposed on the parents
of the individuals who would take advantage
of the legislation. Are they granted passive
immunity from deportation? Probably - thus
exponentially increasing the de facto effects of
this legislation.
Nobody likes a bad dream. However,
Hatch’s dream is a bit too lucid for comfort.
Perhaps a hard nudge and a perpetual caffeine
drip would jar this dream from his mind and
prevent similar ones from leaking onto the
Senate floor. The DREAM Act is a nightmare.
And, while the monster in the closet may not
be real, this legislation is.
Michael Ward is a senior
history major.
INIS
[OST
i:v.
Biased media coverage causes misconception of Iraq war
ast spring, a Battalion columnist argued
the then-nascent war in Iraq was theo
logically unsound. In the column, it was
staled there was no reliable evidence of a link
between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. The
column resulted in e-mails from Aggies who
disagreed with this fact, despite President
George W. Bush telling reporters on Sept. 17,
I "We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein
. was involved in 9-11,” according to The
i Associated Press.
; Vet due to biased media coverage of the war, a frustrating
number of Americans continue to believe Iraq was somehow
involved in 9-1 1. To ensure that the American public is able to
make well-informed opinions on such an important decision,
news outlets must be upfront with their biases.
According to one study, titled “Misperceptions, The Media
an d The Iraq War,” the reason why Americans are seemingly
misinformed involves the popularity of the Fox News Network.
Released jointly by the Program on International Policy
I Attitudes and Knowledge Networks in early October, the report
i revealed those who use Fox as their primary news source were
: wore likely than average to have misperceptions.”
| One misperception the report focused on included the belief
I’bat there was solid evidence demonstrating an Iraq—al Qaida
relationship. The report also focused on the mistaken beliefs
many Americans had that weapons of mass destruction had
ibeen found in Iraq and that the majority of the world supported
I Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq. A staggering 80 percent of
I; Fox viewers believed one of these misperceptions, and 45 per
il eent believed all three.
On the other end of the spectrum, it was discovered that those
who use PBS and NPR as their main news source were the least
likely to believe these misperceptions. Only 23 percent believed
one, and a barely noticeable 4 percent believed in all three.
It is no secret that Fox News-is a conservative network.
Anyone who analyzes the channel recognizes this. Being a con
servative network is not necessarily a bad
thing, but Fox executives need to admit they
do lean to the right.
Real problems occur if one lets his ideo
logical bias distort the way the news is
reported. For example, some may argue that
the demographics of the Fox audience will
lead them to believe the stated mispercep
tions. But even when controlling for demo
graphics and ideological bias, the PIPA/KN
study showed people who used Fox as their
main news source were likely to believe
falsehoods about the Iraq war. In fact, the
level of belief in misperceptions increased
the more one watched Fox News.
This is truly frightening and does not bode
well for the state of political discourse in the
United States. Obviously, people will dis
agree over the interpretation of facts, but it is vital that they be
the same set of facts.
When a huge influence such as Fox distorts the news to suit
its agenda, the American public will base important decisions,
such as whether a pre-emptive war is justified, based on an ide
ological bias.
Online magazine Salon.com recently ran an interview with
Charles Reina, who worked for six years at Fox as a producer,
copy editor and writer. He claims a daily memo posted on the
Fox computer system often contained instructions on how to
slant the day’s news to make it as pro-Bush as possible.
Anyone who still needs convincing that Fox has an agenda
should consider the events of March 28, when the Fox News
Ticker on Sixth Avenue in Manhattan mocked
war protesters. One message read “War protest
er auditions here today ... thanks for coming!”
Another asked, “How do you keep a war pro
tester in suspense? Ignore them.”
So Fox has and has had a pro-war agenda.
This is OK as long as it and others who sup
ported the war based their reasoning on unbi
ased facts.
It is possible to deliver undisputable facts
even if one’s bias is known, which is why Fox
News should admit its bias to the American
public. For instance, freerepublic.com is “an
online gathering place for independent, grass
roots conservatism on the Web.” Yet it often
contains links to informative articles.
Salon.com’s editors lean left, yet it is one of the
better information sources on the Web and in
the past has given voice to conservative writers such as David
Horowitz and Andrew Sullivan. This is a real example of being
“fair and balanced.” This is a mantra that Fox seemingly doesn’t
take seriously.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
COLLINS
EZEANYIM
When a huge influence
such as Fox distorts the
news to suit its
agenda, the American
public will base important
decisions, such as whether
a pre-emptive war is
justified, based on
ideological bias.
Procedure is never
roodically necessary
y
f response to Jonathan Steed’s
Nov. 3 column:
termination far from clothes hangers
in dark alleys and provide greater
health protection to women.
Lindsay Patty
Class of 2006
lisagree with the fact that such a
w iH jeapordize the health of
1 en and control a woman’s free-
of choice. This ban only pro-
ts 1
- ■ percent of abortions, leaving
r 9e degree of freedom of choice
women. The poor victims of the
i° u s attack on women’s health
ices” oppose the Partial Birth
)r tion Ban Act because they state
‘I® term abortion ban without an
e Ption to protect the life or health
Ihe mother is unconstitutional.
Ve ver, in the U.S. Supreme Court
6 Stenberg v. Carhart, it is made
l0u s that the risk to the health of
woman lies within the late term
r tion procedure itself.
^dence of the procedure being
cssary and beneficial to women’s
Rh was not brought up. In fact,
n 9 this Supreme Court trial, the
J^iff did not produce one example
'[I’cumstance i n which the use of
dilation and extraction” was nec-
ar V to preserve the health of the
nan -1 think a ban on such a bar-
c method of abortion will bring
Medical procedure of pregnancy
Each life is valuable
and precious
As a teacher in special education, I
have had the greatest privilege in
getting to know a wide variety of chil
dren ranging from the gifted child to
the most severely handicapped child.
Today’s society places a greater
value on the “perfect” life. Therefore,
when many parents find that their
baby will be born imperfect by these
standards, they choose to eliminate
the odds for their child altogether.
Raising a child with a disability can
often be draining, but the love that
results cannot be compared to any
thing else. We do not know a child s
potential unless we give that child a
chance. Each life is precious and
valuable in its own way.
Dilation and extraction is the abor
tion method used on the child “imper
fect” by the world’s standards. A doc
tor who performs abortions delivers
the child’s body breech. The child’s
undelivered skull is then pierced, and
its brain is extracted. The child is
MAIL CALL
delivered dead.
It is such a waste. By condoning a
practice such as this, we become a
society incapable of seeing the
beauty and perfection in each child,
a child that could have more impact
in the world than we could ever
imagine possible.
Stephanie Bierschenk
Class of 2003
Abortion is last resort
in tough situations
In response to a Nov. 4 mail call:
1 am pro-choice. Don’t get me and
the other pro-choice advocates
wrong, though. We are not pushing
abortion, but we are protecting an
important right — a woman’s right to
reproductive freedom. We should all
respect women enough to let them
decide when and where they are
capable of having a child.
Abortion is neither pretty nor desir
able, but it is definitely not about
choice. Abortion is a last resort used
when, for a variety of reasons, a
woman is not capable of bringing a
child into a world that will be loving
and nurturing. When someone is
placed in this tough situation, the last
thing she needs is to be ostracized
and judged.
If you really want to end abortions,
try getting at the causes. We need to
educate our youths about the dan
gers of unprotected sex, and we
need to work to eliminate poverty so
all potential mothers can give their
children the means to live a fulfilling
life. Sadly, the current anti-choice
administration cares about neither of
these. Rather, they limit access to
effective sex education and afford
able birth control, and they continue
to oppress our impoverished citizens.
Meanwhile, demonstrators continue
to harass women in the most difficult
times of their lives.
Nick Anthis
President, Texas Aggie Democrats
Class of 2004