American Senate Approves Groundbreaking Immigration Reform Bill

Last Thursday, the U.S Senate passed a bill that would allow documentation to be granted to the millions of illegal immigrants that currently exist in the country. It is thought this could naturalise over 11 million people currently living without documentation, whereas currently they would face deportation if they went to the authorities. This represents a Democrat victory in the senate, where they have been attempting to overhaul a law introduced in 1986. 

Unusually, the issue caused divisions within the Republican Party. The majority of Republicans are opposed to the bill which they view as an amnesty for criminal illegal immigrants. As Reuters points out:

“Any bill in the Republican-controlled House is expected to focus heavily on border security and finding immigrants who have overstayed their visas”

However in the Senate, 14 Republicans voted in favour of the bill, demonstrating a multi-party support of its introduction into law. There are number of possible reasons for this, such as the potentially unrealistic task of tracking down every illegal American, or the party’s difficulty in winning the votes of the country’s legal immigrants. Many of these immigrants view the hard-line immigration laws as already being overly restrictive.

It is noted that there could be great difficulty in passing the bill through the largely Republican Lower House. 

In an attempt to ease this, the Senate also approved a border security amendment that promised to cut illegal immigrants. This would spend 46 billion dollars over 10 years to place 20’000 more agents on the U.S-Mexico border, construct a 1’125km fence on portions of this border and retrofit surveillance equipment in the area. Critics of this bill have pointed out that this measure would put huge pressure on the already strained American taxpayer. The largest industrial manufacturing city in America recently went bankrupt, and the country is still struggling with the serious risk of a budget deficit.

Criticism Over Ross Douthat’s Abortion Article

Ross Douthat’s article in the New York Times titled “The Texas Abortion Experiment” was not a greatly flawed piece of writing by any stretch of the imagination, yet reading it one cannot help but feel like he does not understand the enormity of the problems in Ireland. I shall start by saying Europe in general is one matter, for it is true that most countries in Europe do indeed have a time based restriction on most pregnancies. This is partly for the possible trauma inflicted on the baby, but it’s also because it is well documented that the procedure is more painful and dangerous the later the term of pregnancy. Ireland as a specific case, on the other hand, is an entirely different story.

Firstly, he mentions casually that women with the resources can simply go to a different country to have an abortion – Does this not undermine everything he is about to say? It is simply not a credible argument to point to Ireland’s relatively low prenatal mortality rate and relative gender equality and say this is still possible with abortion unavailable, but then point out the fact that abortion is not only available but widespread. I will add that it is widespread too, it's not a matter of "Some go abroad", we're talking thousands of women yearly. Hence, Ireland’s maternal mortality may be relatively low, but this is nothing to do with the absence of abortion.

Secondly, he goes on to dismiss the point that in Ireland women are more likely to be taken advantage of because of the lack of widely available abortion. We’ll set aside for a minute he has already undermined this point by mentioning the availability of abortion in other jurisdictions. The fact is that many Irish people do feel these laws are unfair towards women. For example, a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant can’t seek abortion, and if she does, she faces a jail term twice the length of that of her rapist. The original version of the law was introduced in 1861, a time when gender equality was mere myth in Europe. Let’s be generous and assume there is no misogynistic intent behind this law, and say it’s there purely for the baby. It does not change the fact this is not a gender-equal law.

Finally, he directly associates liberalism of healthcare as an answer to abortion - “Abortion can be safely limited only when the government does more to cover women’s costs in other ways”. While it is true that a great number of abortions happen because the mother believes she cannot afford to raise a child, simply supplying money in terms of benefits will not fix the problem. I have made this argument before over rogue Fine Gael TD Peter Mathew’s speech in the Dáil. Not only is it unrealistic in all but the richest of countries to pay this kind of benefit, it doesn’t change the fact that raising a child is a full-time job. Once again I’ll be generous and assume that the mother is able to survive on these benefits without a partner – She still is not in the work place, she’s not advancing her career, she’s not becoming powerful. Is it so difficult to assume that a woman might just have aspirations in life beyond having a child?

In short, reading through Doudhat’s article where it covered Ireland was like hearing the observations of a man who owns a mine on the conditions for the people who work for him (Without the assumed difference of status). I felt like he trivialised our situation. You can sort of see how he might understand see it this way, but it’s written from a perspective detached from the reality of Irish life. I believe he needs to come down to the coal face, get his hands dirty, and hear some of the stories with his own ears to gain a true understanding of Ireland.

(Opinion by J.Nolan,  Photo from the New York Times)

Arrest Confirmed Over Twitter Abuse

Police confirmed last night that a man has been arrested over anti-feminist harassment of writer Caroline Criado-Perez. It is alleged the man sent abuse messages over several social networking sites including Twitter after the writer won a campaign to have a woman appear on bank notes. The messages appeared not only to be anti-feminist in nature, but also involved death threats and threats of rape.

The police arrested the man three days after a complaint was made, however Criado-Perez has stated that the reaction of Twitter was “completely inadequate”. It is well known that there have been previous arrests on the website for their user’s inflammatory speech, but little has changed in the administration of the site. The site stated that they are testing ways to simply reporting, such as a “Report Tweet” button.

There have been many calls across social media sites for greater account suspension for clearly threatening behaviour on websites, and victims of this kind of assault feel that simply hiding the offensive material from their own view is not enough. Groups on Facebook such as Youth Defence have been criticized for holding homophobic and anti-female views. One user stated:

“If these things were being said in public, there is no way the law would stand for it”

One particular case which met with stern criticism was when one Facebook user referred to a woman who died from abortion as “A silly terrorist who got blown up by his own bomb”. The only problem is that even if the remarks are offensive, so long as they do not target one member specifically, the administrators are unlikely to do anything about it, and the resentment is only going to build.

Jim Walsh Fails to Apologise for Dail Speech.

Fine Fail senator Jim Walsh has stated that he does not intend to apologise for his speech in the Seanad. Personally, I find myself remiss to call this speech as part of an argument. Instead, it was a speech endemic to this man’s failure to understand the meaning of the word “Argument”. It was a speech of directed shame; full of grisly details and fury but with no significant information. Now in his defence of his speech on The Irish Times, he digs himself deeper. Not only does he fail to apologise for this inexcusable speech, but he attempts to justify it as an attempt to “Show the Truth” of abortion. 

It brings light to Walsh’s many failings, not just as a politician but as a human being. Firstly, he used this description because he thinks that he’s the only one to understand what abortion is. Walsh is a man who will stand up before the Seanad and lecture not only the women present, but the women who may well have been watching the speech online, and may well have even had an abortion, what an abortion is. This is an extremely condescending stance to take. The members of the house and the women of Ireland know much better than Walsh on this matter, and this speech displayed his arrogance.

Secondly, Walsh believes the only way to communicate a message of import is to resort to what has been described by other members of the house as mere “Oral pornography”. To think that the Fine Fail government would put forward a politician that does not understand the need for political formality reflects badly upon the whole institution. The Senators wear formal clothes, formal shoes and use formal language for a reason – Without formality, there can be no respect. In short, the very nature of the speech was as disrespectful as it was condescending.

Finally, Walsh asserted in his apology for the speech that there is not enough of this kind of language in the media, and that it never sees air. He has the nerve to say this not even one month after the infamous Pro-Life billboard driven right up to the door of the Rape Crisis Centre or even one year since the Pro-Life campaign’s “Abortion Tears Her Life Apart” billboard campaign. There is already an incredible amount of this description of abortion in the media, and Jim Walsh is convinced that it doesn’t exist. One can only postulate two theories for this – Either he knows it exists and is lying, or he is so embarrassingly out of touch that he is not even aware of the Rape Crisis Centre incident. 

So in summary, what was wrong with the manner in which Walsh addressed the Seanad that morning? Absolutely nothing – Once he forgives himself for the fact it was condescending, disrespectful, and mostly not even correct. Perhaps I will ironically draw criticism for being too direct in my own criticism. It doesn’t matter. I will reserve my political correctness until such time as Walsh grows up and becomes a politician and becomes correct about something.

(Opinion Piece by J.Nolan, photo from The Journal)

Public Disapproval Mounts Over Magdalenes

Last Tuesday, a group of protestors met in front of the Sisters of Mercy Dublin HQ, with demands that the order apologise and pay restitution to the Magdalene survivors. There was no counter demonstration. The fund is expected to cost up to 58 million euro, and the Taoiseach as expressed he is “Disappointed” that the order has not made the funds available, and asked them to reflect on the decision. It is not clear at this time how much Kenny expected them to pay. To date, the Institutional Redress Board, set up to organise the compensation of survivors of institutional abuse, is expected to pay out 1.46 billion euro excluding the Magdalene fund, at least half of which must be paid by the congregations.

However the money might not be the only thing withheld from the survivors. In a statement on The God Slot on RTE, the orders responsible for the laundries claim they have nothing to apologise for. This statement stands to undermine the possibility of reconciliation, as reconciliation cannot occur without admission of guilt. This decision came in spite of Enda Kenny’s own apology to the survivors earlier this year.

“Just another of the myriad examples of why the best road in the country is the one to Dublin Airport. This place is beyond change and hope. It's all chains and hype.”

The enormity of the statement has met with swift disapproval from the public, such as the commentator above. Kenny’s refusal to enter legal pursuit of the sisters has been described as “Crocodile Tears”, and that it does not go far enough. Another commentator said in the times “Without an apology there can be no justice”. More developments on the issue are expected to stretch into the coming weeks.

3D Printed Gun Attracts Criticism

Recently, an American firearms manufacturer known as Defence Distributed has met with opposition after releasing a 3D printer blueprint for a working pistol. The weapon requires only a nail to function as a firing pin and ammunition to work, neither of which would be difficult to smuggle in to a country where firearms are illegal.

Defence Distributed has made parts for firearms before, but the “Liberator” is the first weapon that can be made from scratch. The non-profit company, which is based in Texas, claims that the group’s purpose is to defend American civil liberties by distributing firearms:

“To defend the civil liberty of popular access to arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms; and to publish and distribute, at no cost to the public, such information and knowledge in promotion of the public interest.”

However, there is no comment on the website with regards to security for other nations should these plans reach mass distribution on the internet. Furthermore, American critics have claimed that this is an attempt to subvert the upcoming gun control laws in America. There is also no acknowledgment towards what should happen should these plans find their way into the hands of minors. 

According to the FDA, there are no laws in America against private citizens producing their own weapons. There have been no cases of the weapons being made in countries where they are banned nor is there any attempt to ban or restrict their manufacture. It is entirely possible though that as printing technology becomes cheaper, guns will become more popular.