| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/25 |
| 2004/5/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:30413 Activity:insanely high |
5/25 Fabricating a Statistic in the Immigration Debate
questionable ethics by LATimes
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141902/posts
\_ Don't hide that it's a freeper link and we won't delete it.
\_ 2 wrongs don't make a right.
\_ insert hilarious racist Asian joke here
\_ RAPIST!
\_ RACIST!
\_ Why do you care that it's from freerepublic? It's an excerpt for
an LA Times article, which can be found here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-fi-golden24may24,1,818783.column?coll=la-news-learning
(registration required)
\_ actually there are responses from various parties
not on LA's site. Thats the point!
\_ I care because Freeper doesn't always post the entire article,
and anything they do post is accompanied by pages of debate
that I don't care to read.
\_ ^debate^invective
\_ I hate the spewage at the freerepublic more than you and
wish the freeperguy would post the original links without
the freeper crap in it. there was a time (a looong time
ago) that (very briefly) the free republic was a decent
conservative site but the spewing morons quickly took over
and all thinking people left. the morons at the freerep
make the rest of us look bad. i've managed to start any
number of good conversations and debates here posting
original links without linking through some crap site like
the freerepublic. --real conservative
\_ why do you hate immigrants?
\_ why do you hate white people? |
| 12/25 |
|
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141902/posts StoneColdGOP Illegal immigration is one of California's most contentious and frustrating public policy issues, but it does have one positive feature: It continues to be an exciting laboratory for experimentation in the new math. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), who readers may remember from his having guarded the conservative flank as a candidate in last year's recall election. McClintock wrote an editorial column built around the following irony: "This year, nearly 7,500 qualified California residents -- who would otherwise be entering California state universities as incoming freshmen -- are likely to be turned away for lack of funds. Meanwhile, approximately 7,500 illegal immigrants will receive heavily subsidized university educations at a cost of between $45 million and $65 million annually at those same universities." McClintock had introduced a bill to eliminate this so-called subsidy. As it happens, the bill died in the Senate Education Committee. But lest anyone think I am beating a dead horse, in this state the issue of illegal immigration is a horse with a million lives. McClintock's essay has been published by the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Daily News of Los Angeles and the Oakland Tribune, among other newspapers around the state. None of them, however, apparently undertook to authenticate the senator's claims before retailing them to their readers. STATISTICS For those unwilling and unable to stomach actually going to the Times website, basically the author accuses McClintock of making up figures to push for and stir up anti-immigrant (it's never "illegal" with them) fervor. Tom's response to this is here: To: Interested Parties FM: Tom McClintock RE: "Fabricating a Statistic in the Immigration Debate" by Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, May 24, 2004 DT: May 24, 2004 The Los Angeles Times today published a column by Michael Hiltzik questioning the accuracy of statistics I cited in a recent commentary concerning in-state tuition fees for illegal immigrants. Letter to Los Angeles Times Business Editor: May 24, 2004 Mr Rick Wartzman Los Angeles Times Business Editor 202 West 1st Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Mr Wartzman: I am enclosing a copy of a response that I have submitted to a column published by Michael Hiltzik in today's Business section. I want to add a copy of an e-mail that Steven Boilard of the Legislative Analyst's Office sent to Mr Hiltzik directly today, confirming what he had told Mr Hiltzik last week when asked about the accuracy of the information I had released. Specifically, Mr Boilard writes: "As you recall, I told you that there were no firm numbers out there (due to various data limitations), but that I thought his (McClintock's) numbers were in the ballpark of what we thought was reasonable. I told you that we had developed some rough estimates in response to various requests in the past." Mr Hiltzik was in possession of this information when he reported, "But that office (LAO) says it has never produced any such numbers." I leave it to your judgment whether this meets the ethical standards of the Los Angeles Times. Most glaringly, Mr Hiltzik reported that the Legislative Analyst's Office disavowed "any such numbers." In fact, Mr Hiltzik was informed by the Legislative Analyst's Office last week that the numbers I cited were within the range of their estimates. Indeed, the statistics I used -- and the column itself -- were submitted to the LAO prior to publication to verify the accuracy of the numbers and the estimate was confirmed by that office. In my interview with Mr Hiltzik, I also pointed out that the estimate of 7,500 students is quite consistent with an estimated cost of $637 million used by Gov. Gray Davis when he vetoed the first bill extending the in-state tuition subsidy to illegal immigrants in 1999. At least one staff analysis written in 2001 also used this figure - citing proponents of the measure. I appreciate that Mr Hiltzik has a political point of view quite different from mine and I respect an honest debate over our differing policy positions and the data that supports them. But accusing me of fabricating statistics - while ignoring facts presented to him -- is unfair, untrue and unworthy of a professional journalist. View Replies To: StoneColdGOP The part of this issue that stuns me is the silence of blacks and the ultra-left wingers who claim to be on their side. In south LA (just go out the front door of USC and head south on Vermont), there are thousands and thousands of young, unemployed black people. They will never get entry level jobs nor the training available while working an entry level job. It is just that illegal criminal Mexican river swimming aliens have invaded our country and taken almost all the low level jobs. The not so obvious part is that the Mexicans will acclimate nicely and use this illegally gained experience to better position themselves in the next generation. Thus, they will use the education and work experience to leap frog blacks. We must stop or control the flow of illegals into our country. View Replies To: StoneColdGOP whether this meets the ethical standards of the Los Angeles Times That's like asking whether it's higher than the bottom of the ocean. Now that McClintock isn't in a position to draw votes FROM Schwarzenegger, and instead is largely allied WITH him (and having Schwarz. Now the Times turns on McClintock -- the facts be damned. View Replies To: Know your rights You must be kidding, right? This is the same LA Times that came out with those infamous groping stories about Arnold on the eve of the election. Their ethical standards are lower than what's found in a sewer. Its one thing to disagree with Tom McClintock that the illegal alien subsidy is an illegal not to mention unfair preference for foreigners over those who were born here but its hitting below the belt for their journalist to accuse a California State Senator of fabricating statistics to make his case about the foolishness of the said subsidy. The good news is as a result of its blatant partisanship, fewer and fewer people buy much less than read what is printed between the pages of the Left Coast's leading liberal newspaper. View Replies To: StoneColdGOP What fascinates me is that the LA Times ignores (no surprise) the consequences of illegal immigration in these discussions. Not unexpected but certainly arrogant when the topic is illegal immigration and education in California. First some facts: 1)Beginning in March 2003 over 50% of the babies born in California were classified as Hispanic. Based on these few factual premises it is conservatively estimate that approximately one third of the school age population in California today is a consequence of illegal immigration. This translates to tens of thousands of students who are a consequence of illegal immigration, who enter our state supported post secondary educational system in California each year paying resident tuitions. I wish McClintock had addressed the greater issue but we have to start somewhere if we wish to cripple that beast and drive it from our shores. View Replies Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| www.latimes.com/news/education/la-fi-golden24may24,1,818783.column?coll=la-news-learning Illegal immigration is one of California's most contentious and frustrating public policy issues, but it does have one positive feature: It continues to be an exciting laboratory for experimentation in the new math. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), who readers may remember from his having guarded the conservative flank as a candidate in last year's recall election. McClintock wrote an editorial column built around the following irony: "This year, nearly 7,500 qualified California residents -- who would otherwise be entering California state universities as incoming freshmen -- are likely to be turned away for lack of funds. Meanwhile, approximately 7,500 illegal immigrants will receive heavily subsidized university educations at a cost of between $45 million and $65 million annually at those same universities." McClintock had introduced a bill to eliminate this so-called subsidy. As it happens, the bill died in the Senate Education Committee. But lest anyone think I am beating a dead horse, in this state the issue of illegal immigration is a horse with a million lives. McClintock's essay has been published by the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Daily News of Los Angeles and the Oakland Tribune, among other newspapers around the state. None of them, however, apparently undertook to authenticate the senator's claims before retailing them to their readers. Let's start with the assertion that 7,500 illegal immigrants are receiving subsidized tuition at the state universities. McClintock is referring to so-called AB 540 exemptions, enacted by the Legislature and signed into law by Gov. The exemptions apply to students who have attended three years of high school in California, graduated from a California school and gained admission to one of the state universities or colleges. Under AB 540, these students are charged the resident tuition and fees even if their families do not qualify as residents -- because, say, they've moved out of state. University and college administrators could not provide more than rough conjecture about the number of students who would receive the exemption when AB 540 was making its way through the Legislature. In part this was because no one knew whether the law would bring out of the woodwork candidates who wouldn't even apply to the UC or Cal State systems if they had to pay the full nonresident freight. In any event, the numbers floating around were in the hundreds, not thousands. Cal State thought it might see 500 exemptions, for instance, "but that was a guess," says the system's spokeswoman, Colleen Bentley-Adler. The prospects were so cloudy that legislative committee staffers didn't even bother to work up a fiscal impact estimate for the bill. Now that we are in the second full year of the waiver program, the statistics haven't grown much firmer. The only institution with solid numbers is the University of California, which says it granted waivers to 719 students in the 2002-03 academic year. Of those, however, only 93 were "potentially undocumented students." At Cal State, Bentley-Adler says the system has never collected waiver statistics from its constituent campuses. The reason may be that the difference between resident and nonresident tuition (about $7,836 a year) doesn't directly affect Cal State's budget; The California Community Colleges also say they don't collect AB 540 numbers centrally. But the system's outside estimate -- and college officials stress the term "outside" -- is that the waiver is claimed today by no more than 1,500 students. Last week he told me that he thought they came from the Office of the Legislative Analyst, Sacramento's nonpartisan analytical body. But that office says it has never produced any such numbers. McClintock also says he's unsure whether his figure of 7,500 illegal immigrant students includes those at the community colleges; given that there are more than 1 million community college students, that's a lot of wiggle room. McClintock seized on the figure of 7,500 because it so handily matches the number of qualified UC applicants denied admission this year because of enrollment cutbacks. The implication, plainly, is that illegal immigrants have stolen opportunities that should go to citizens and law-abiding newcomers. That's certainly the narrative line that grabs people's attention. "I find it appalling that the illegal immigrant population can get into our university system easier than can the children of people whether legal immigrants or born and bred in the United States," one exercised reader wrote the Daily News. To begin with, AB 540 doesn't give anyone, illegal immigrant or otherwise, preferential admission to a state university or college. Moreover, McClintock's tally of 7,500 prospective university freshmen "turned away for lack of funds" doesn't cover both UC and Cal State -- it refers to an option UC alone has given those students to spend two years at a community college in return for guaranteed enrollment as juniors. Suggesting they were turned away because their slots were taken by "7,500 illegal immigrants," especially when UC has reported granting waivers to no more than 93 "potentially undocumented" students, is slicing the baloney pretty thick. The fundamental untruth in McClintock's column is the intimation that a subsidy to illegal immigrants helped cause the financial crunch in California higher education. In fact, there is a reason for the fiscal crisis at UC, Cal State and the community colleges, and Sen. McClintock is partially responsible: It's the refusal by the Legislature and governor to close the state's budget gap by levying enough taxes to pay for all the programs they like. Here, as in most recent discussions of state finances, Sen. Clearly he's in favor of admitting those 7,500 snubbed university freshmen to the campus of their choice, or he wouldn't make such a big stink about their plight. He just doesn't want to pay for them by adequately supporting the state universities with tax revenue. Instead, he chooses to lay another sin at the feet of illegal immigration. McClintock told me his chief point was that resident tuition "should not be granted to people who are in this country in violation of our immigration laws," and that they shouldn't be granted a pass merely because they've stayed long enough to acquire a high school education. I'm sure McClintock is sincere in his position, and it's a legitimate topic of debate. But by a bipartisan vote in 2001, the Legislature settled the issue on the side of granting more rights to undocumented immigrants, a trend that has continued. McClintock wishes to reopen the question, that's his right. He doesn't, though, have the right to manufacture a scandal or invent a statistic to do so. |