Congratulations on Your Ignorance

By Janet  |  2011/12/01 19:35 Posted in Civil Rights, Disability Discrimination, Education, Health-Related  |  Comments (0)

discrimination

A 13 year old boy from Pennsylvania is suing a private school for discrimination after it refused to admit him because of his HIV status. This case is drawing comparisons to the Ryan White case from the 1980′s. And while many people realize that this is a case of discrimination, other folks seem to think that this behavior by Milton Hershey School is acceptable because it is a private institution. Apparently, because it is a private school, people think that they get to do whatever they want. That simply is not the case.  Private institutions do not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their health, even when they claim they are doing it for the health or safety of others.  (HIV is not an easy-to-catch illness, despite what some ignorant people seem to persist in thinking.) Despite what they think, they do have to follow many standards that protect those with disabilities, including the ADA.

First of all, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) exists to protect all people with disabilities. It exists to keep people from having their basic rights stripped away from them based on their disability. According to their website:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) gives federal civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities similar to those provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications.

Before someone starts thinking that HIV cannot possibly be a disability, the ADA website goes even further to cover this:

Yes. An individual is considered to have a “disability” if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an
impairment. Persons with HIV disease, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, have physical impairments that substantially limit
one or more major life activities and are, therefore, protected by the law.

Persons who are discriminated against because they are regarded as being HIV-positive are also protected. For example, a person
who was fired on the basis of a rumor that he had AIDS, even if he did not, would be protected by the law.

Moreover, the ADA protects persons who are discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an
individual who is HIV-positive. For example, the ADA would protect an HIV-negative woman who was denied a job because her
roommate had AIDS.

And they also specify that this act covers “public accommodations” and a private school is considered to be a public accommodation, as are businesses, doctors offices, dentists offices, health clubs, museums, libraries, health clubs, and daycare centers. A public accommodation is specifically defined as “a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to a place of public accommodation.” This means that a person who has any kind of disability is supposed to be given an equal opportunity.

Not only would this be covered under ADA, a disabled student is also covered under Section 504.  Section 504 covers people with a variety of disabilities, including ones of the immune system.  (HIV/AIDS are considered to be immune-related disorders because of their suppression of the immune system.)  Section 504 and the Office of Civil Rights for the U.S. Department of Education govern not only public institutions, but private ones as well.

It disgusts me that people persist in thinking that it is okay to discriminate against people with HIV/AIDS.  It also disgusts me that people think that schools can keep certain people from receiving an education because of their health status.  (There are obviously some personal reasons for my frustration at schools that do this.)  If we were talking about a disease or condition that only puts child in a wheelchair, then it would be obvious to all involved that this was a case of discrimination, but because of the persisting belief that you can catch HIV just by being around an infected person, there are still people who are willing to justify this kind of behavior.  It shouldn’t have been justified in Ryan White’s case and it definitely shouldn’t be justified in this case.

Parents Don’t Always Know Best

By Janet  |  2011/10/26 15:14 Posted in Education  |  Comments (0)

In case you have been living under a rock for the past few decades, you have probably heard the numerous stories about how abstinence-only education is not a viable option for the sex education of teenagers. Esteemed groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics have called for more informative sex education classes for young people. Teaching abstinence-only education increases the likelihood that teenagers will have unsafe sex, which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancies.

The most recent case of uninformed, but well-intended parents advocating sex ignorance over sex education comes from New York City. The New York City Parents’ Choice Coalition, as they call themselves, call people who advocate comprehensive sex-education and/or denounce abstinence-only education “extremists” and say that the points of view of the “extremists” are not true. To back them up, the group uses studies put out by an abstinence-only organization. According to the group, abstinence-only education does not disregard the facts about contraceptives. They claim that the programs contain plenty of information on the methods: “how frequently they fail to protect young people from pregnancy and STDs, and how condoms provide limited protection against HPV and herpes.” So, maybe they’re a bit right that the groups aren’t completely about abstinence, but their own phrasing indicates that they advocate teaching kids to be sex-negative.

It should be noted that the children of these parents are not being forced to attend the program. Even though the program is mandated, the New York state law allows them to opt out of any sex ed program that the parent finds inappropriate. Some parents complain that opting-out is too difficult or that their children should have an abstinence-only option. But with the ability to opt-out being available and morality issues generally being something people have to teach at home, it almost makes it seem like the parents are complaining because they want to complain.

Proponents of abstinence-only education typically argue that their version of sex education helps youth avoid the emotional damage of sex, promotes healthier and more fulfilling relationships, abstinence-only education correctly responds to an epidemic of STDs, provides some information on STDs and contraception, effectively reduces rates of teen sex and pregnancy, dicourages out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and discourages youth sex and risk-taking behaviors. They also make arguments about how comprehensive sex education promotes an irresponsible sexual culture and encourages sex, undermines the message of abstinence or ignores it as an option completely, does not reduce sexually trasmitted diseases, and the lack of modesty about sex-education is not appropriate according to parents. There are many problems with all of these arguments, ranging from the sources for the arguments (generally from conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation) and the presumed moral (read: religious) right of the abstinence-only crowd to dominate the sex ed debate.

According to an American school teacher by the name of Susan Wilson and a study about sex education, comprehensive sex ed teaches about sexual pleasure and gives students an understanding that sex is not bad or wrong, while abstinence-only education will lead to more self doubt and confusion about sex impulses. Teaching teens that sex is not bad will “help teens live a more fulfilling life, opposed to a life of self-denial.” The study also stated that teenagers who make virginity pledges, which is a normal part of abstinence-only educations, were just as likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases as those who had sex education in their history. It also found that they were more likely to engage in “risky behavior, such as anal and oral sex” because they believed that virginity was linked solely with vaginal sex. A study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that one in four young women between fourteen and nineteen was infected with at least one of four common STDs, despite an atmosphere which promoted abstinence-only education over comprehensive sex ed. And abstinence-only education has not led to lowered rates of pregnancy, according to the non-partisan group Mathematica Policy Reasearch, Inc.

Proponents of sex-ed note that sex education teaches nothing new when it comes to sexual culture. Everywhere you look nowadays, you can find something sexual or provocative. With teens having greater access to the internet, they are more likely to find sexually provocative information, images, and videos than young people were even ten years ago. Even off of the internet, young people are bombarded with sexual imagery whether in the form of lyrics to a song or sex scenes from shows like True Blood. Even though the latter is intended for adults only, it is still available for young people to watch. And comprehensive sex education classes are not nearly as glamorous or hot as True Blood. In fact, with the discussion of diseases and ramnifications from sex, the kids may be sickened by what they see in the class.

Abstinence is not something that they should expect all teens to follow. Teens are going to have sex. Even if you are able to keep some from having sex, you cannot guarantee that every child will be abstinent, so you need to have an education that makes sure that students are fully informed. Donna Martin, a Beverly Hills 90210 character, was very insightful with the following quote:

Well, it’s just… if you say that kids don’t need condoms because they shouldn’t be having sex in the first place, well you’re overlooking two very important things. One is that a lot of kids are having sex and they other is that they are kids. I mean… it’s like if you have a swimming pool in your backyard… you can tell your children not to go in it, you can even build a fence around it but if you know that they’re going to find a way into that water… don’t you think you ought to teach those kids how to swim?

Telling teens to not have sex is a way to ensure that they want to have sex more. The same annoying defiance trait that parents notice is their toddlers is also common in teenagers. By making an activity taboo, parents may inadvertantly cause their children to take up that activity.

The sex-negative connotations are also an important thing to discuss when it comes to this issue.  As a culture that was started by Puritans, we shouldn’t really be shocked that we are taught from a young age that sex is bad or dirty.  We should, however, be willing to change that attitude.  By advocating abstinence-only/sex-negative education, people are advocating for an education that leads to the oppression of women, the LGBT community, the BDSM community, polyamorous persons, and other traditionally slighted groups.  It advocates a culture of ignorance over one of freedom and understanding.  It would seem like parents might want their kids to grow into roles as accepting and loving individuals, instead of being so afraid of “the sex.”

Parents are entitled to the right to keep their child under their moral thumbs, but the promotion of a coalition that denounces and vilifies comprehensive sex education is not helping the society as a whole.  It might help others who share their perspective, but it doesn’t help the rest of us.  If parents want to convince their children that sex is bad and abstinence is good, then that is their decision.  It would be helpful, though, if they would be more truthful with regards to what will be taught and what unbiased studies have shown about the two types of sex education.

Parents also should not denigrate educational resources like Go Ask Alice!, the website run by Columbia University’s Health Services.  By unfairly branding it as the go-to place for all that is immoral, they may be keeping young people from seeking the valid and important information that is available on the website.  The website is not even a sex education-only website.  It covers all health matters, which makes the denigration even more horrifying.

I’m The 99% and So Are You

By Janet  |  2011/10/22 00:59 Posted in Class-Based, Economy, Exploitation of Wealth, Internet  |  Comments (3)

Before you ever argue against a movement, it is best to understand what it is that movement stands for. It is also best to understand how that movement’s stance applies to you. A prime example of this is the “We Are the 99%” Movement and the backlash amongst some people.

First of all, people need to understand what the movement is about. Almost one month before the protests began on Wall Street, a blog on Tumblr began with people explaining how financial situations were impacting their lives. It was done in a very simple way, with an image of them holding up a note. Like many things on the internet, especially on Tumblr, it spread like wildfire and became a protest slogan.

The movement is not about being lazy. It is not about whining. It is not about being uneducated or being parasites. It is not about thinking that people deserve more than they get. It is simply about how people making up the movement are sick of being ignored by those who hold the power, aka the money, in the country.

The terminology regarding this movement is not new.  It has been around quite a while.  The wealthiest one percent became a catchphrase in the 2000 Presidential candidate debates. In 2006, Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, made a documentary called “The One Percent” and showed the growing disparity in wealth amongst the citizens of America. It was also mentioned by Nobel a laureate and Columbia University economics Professor Joseph Stiglitz in a Vanity Fair article in May of 2011.

So if this disparity is nothing new, then maybe we should take a better look at what the disparity actually is. The richest one percent of Americans (aka those making over one million dollars) now take home around twenty-four percent of the income in this country, which is up drastically from the almost 9 percent that it was at in 1976. This means that the United States has more unequal distribution of wealth than countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, China, and India; countries we seem to generally pretend like we are better than. The countries that we are closest to, when it comes to the disparity, are Russia and Iran. In 1986, the wealthiest Americans made up 12 percent of the population and thirty-three percent of the overall wealth of the country. Now, it is one percent with forty percent of the country’s wealth. In 1980, the C.E.O.’s of the largest American companies made 42 times more than the average worker. By 2001, the C.E.O.’s made 531 times as much. (In Europe, this difference is currently at 25:1.) The 299 CEOs of companies listed on the S&P 500 Index made a combined $3.4 billion per year. That amount alone could pay for incomes for 102,325 average American jobs. And between 1980 and 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in incomes in American went to the richest one percent. The current disparity of wealth rivals that of the Depression era.

Now, this change in income might have been more ignored if 9/11, and the subsequent Bush tax cuts, recession, and various economic recovery packages (bailouts) hadn’t come into play. The tax cuts didn’t just go to those in the lower income brackets, they also went to the most affluent Americans. The justification was that the lessened tax burden would create new jobs and stimulate the economy. We now have 9.6% unemployment, a number that is slowly getting better, and this is still the justification being used by many within the Republican and other fiscally conservative political parties and organizations. It seems that if the tax breaks on the wealthy stimulated job growth, then they would have done so already.

But this is not the belief shared by those promoting the taxes. Instead, some want to cancel programs, like Social Security and unemployment, that benefit the lower income brackets. Others, like Herman Cain, want to increase taxes on the lower income brackets, while decreasing taxes on the upper brackets. Putting more of the country’s financial burden on the poorer citizens is not right. These are people who cannot afford to pay more in taxes, which one might think would be obvious to those proposing the taxes, but is apparently not. Instead, if the argument is used, then the comments of how increased taxes on the upper echelon is somehow a punishment for being successful. Wouldn’t it counter that increased taxes on the poor is a punishment for not having enough success?

It has been suggested by Robert H. Frank of Cornell University, Adam Seth Levine of Vanderbilt University, and Oege Dijk of the European University Institute that inequality leads to more financial distress. The basis was census data, which showed that places where inequality increased the most also endured the greatest surges in bankruptcies. They compared it to the same kind of behavior that takes place after any windfall, where those with the money go and buy more to show off their wealth, while those right below try to catch up and end up going into too much debt.

Other scholars have found that there are more divorces in areas with rising inequality. It is believed that this is a byproduct of the financial distress. When the families fall apart, people are more likely to become depressed or to develop stress-related health issues.  An increase in divorces can also impact the ability of a child. whose parents are divorcing, to succeed in school.

More studies show that there are even more issues for those who do not make the highest incomes in the country, including health problems of both the mental and physical varieties. People who have lost their job and have trouble finding work for a long period of time end up having lower self-esteem, which makes it even harder for them to get a job. These people then have a harder time with family members and friends, which can lead to their support system slowly (or quickly) disappearing. The less support they have, the harder it will be for them to ever get back on their feet.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, if we wanted to discuss the problems of improper distribution of wealth, we would look to Latin America. Unlike the United States, these countries like Brazil that have had such disparities in the past have worked hard to change their ways. Their work has paid off, while our social inaction has caused our country and our fellow citizens more strife.  So while their economies strengthen, we see ours crumble more and more, but we don’t seem to understand that we are causing our own problems.

Increases of inequality is the flipside of something that we seem to forget: shrinking opportunity. The less opportunity a person has to achieve, the higher the inequality goes. This contributes to a monopoly of power and to special treatment being given to those in power. This keeps our young people from achieving in education and innovation, which causes our country to begin a dangerous path down the road of intellectual and economic stagnation. We become like tarnished silver that never gets polished. The neglect that we apply to our own people ends up causing our country to become less and less impressive and less and less significant of a contributor to the world.

But whenver anyone tries to change this new “norm” terms like “socialist”, “communist”, “Marxist”, or “lazy” get thrown around. People start making comparisons to Stalin and Hitler, but don’t understand that they are applying these terms to the wrong people. The activists become some kind of enemy to the nation, and we pretend that activists have never helped this country in any way. This ignores the fact that the country has reached some of its highest achievements from activism and from challenging the norms.  It also ignores the fact that there are countries where being more fiscally equal has proven to be a benefit to a society rather than an impediment.  And most importantly, it ignores that while we are denigrating the supporters of equality, we are allowing those who are oppressing so many Americans to continue their oppressive ways.

Most members of the House of Representatives and almost all United States Senators are already members of the one percent when they arrive in Congress. They are kept in power by money from the top one percent, and know that if they cater to their fellow one-percenters that they will be greatly rewarded when they leave office. Most policymakers within the trade and economic fields also come from the one percent. And with lobbying gifts and the newer deregulations on campaign donations from companies becoming the norm, it becomes harder and harder for those without enough of the Benjamins to even be heard. It also becomes harder and harder to ever expect a bill that taxes the wealthy fairly because they technically, for lack of a better term, own the country.

And all of this contributes to the dislike of the control from that top one percent by those within the ninety-nine percent movement. Within the movement, people have seen the glorification of the rich and the condemnation of the poor, and it has upset them. And then the disdain from fellow members of the ninety-nine percent has confused them. The members of the movement understand that, regardless of what a person might think, all members of that ninety-nine percent have been negatively impacted by this love fest with that one percent. Whether the impact is in the form of a job, an education, poor environmental controls on pollution,their personal health or the health of a family member, or just a pure lack of opportunity, all members of that 99 percent have been impacted.

Lessening the funding to public schools, for example, leads to teachers losing their jobs. That leads to increased class sizes, which keeps children from getting the individual time with the teacher that is so necessary to get a proper education. It also leads to less attention being paid to any possible learning or behavior problems that might impact a student. These things keep a child from succeeding in the ways that they might have been able to succeed if their school system had been properly funded. By impeding their education at such a young age, their future becomes more and more limited. Children who might have gone on to become doctors, instead might be kept from acheiving higher education or might be forced to drop out of high school. The lack of any degree would cause them to make less and would make it harder for them to get proper training in many fields, which would then impact the productivity of that person and the productivity of the society in general. It would also impact the productivity of future generations that might not be given adequate chances at success because of the failings of previous generations. This would perpetuate very dangerous economic and social cycles that could drastically damage the potential for success that this nation might otherwise have.

When the founders of this nation declared their independence from George III, they based that claim of independence on rights, fairness, and equality. And though there were some who didn’t support total equality and others who had to support less equality because of the social norms of the time, it is unlikely that any ever imagined that this country would become a basic den of iniquity. Our most sacred and basic freedoms and opportunities as Americans have been sold to the highest bidders, turning our country’s leaders into prostitutes. Our country that held such high hopes for so many who sought our shores because of the great “American dream” has become a country where daily it becomes more and more unlikely for a middle-class citizen to ever make it to the top. In fact, it is easier to do so in European countries than it is to do so here.

The same inequalities that triggered some of the protesting in the Arab Spring movements are being visited upon American families at increasing rates, with food prices and costs of living going up and likelihood of adequate employment (particularly among the youth) dwindling. One out of six Americans desiring a full-time job is unable to get one. One out of seven Americans is on food stamps. So few jobs and so little ability to adequately get food makes people angry. I would say ask Gadhafi what happens to societies where this inequality is continuously perpetuated and glorified, but I think we all know what happened there. And it isn’t just the recent Arab Spring stuff or the Occupy Wall Street protests that should wake people up to the possible future that lies before us if we do not change our ways.

Look at the history of this kind of behavior. Look at the French Revolution. Why did that happen? Look at the February Revolution of 1917. Why did the Bolsheviks hold so much of a following? People didn’t just have revolutions because revolting was fun. They did it because their pockets and their bellies were empty. And I am not advocating a violent revolution by saying this, but saying that the justification for a peaceful demonstration pointing out the disparity should not be seen as something unworthy of our attention or concern. I’m also saying that we should look at what we can do to make this country better before anymore families are forced to go hungry or go without heat during the winter or to lose their houses or to lose their jobs.

The protests, whether on the internet or in a public setting, are showing us that we need to change.  We need to realize that the poor are not evil and deserving of disdain.  We need to realize that allowing Americans to go without the basic necessities for life is not justice and is not the thing that a free nation does.  We need to realize that the only way to make the world a better place is to realize that change is a true necessity.  It is not simply a desire of the young and idealistic.  It is an outright need for our country to survive.  Without changing our ways, we repeat the sins of the past that led people and nations to destruction.  That path of destruction is not the path that we should try to be on.  We should be willing to make things better and to not just accept the status quo, because only then will be the country that we set out to be in the 18th century.  Only then will we truly become the America that we were meant to be.

To those who are not in the top one percent of wealth-holders or income-earners but like to pretend that they’re more important than the poorest of the 99%, maybe you should look more closely at things. No matter how well prepared you think you are or how much better you think you are than those protesting or those going hungry, you should never overestimate your own position. You may have enough to make it a while if you lost your job. Most of the newly-impoverished did, too. You may have enough food to not go hungry for a while. Some of the impoverished even had that. But no one is truly prepared for the real burdens of the class warfare that is going on in this country. It isn’t something a person can prepare for. You just have to be aware of where you stand in it, and you have to be willing to side with what is right versus what you think is in your pocket’s best interest.

To those who are in the top 1%, but are who are, at the same time, dismissive of the bottom 99%, it might be important to remember that you did not gain fortune or power all on your own.  It was earned on the backs of those who you seem to abhor.  Pretending like they are somehow insignificant to this country is not only disrespectful of them, it rewrites your personal significance to the country.  If these people had not been been your employees or somehow connected to however you made your income, then you probably wouldn’t be in your position right now.

To those who are in the top 1%, but realize just how lucky they are or how unfair the system is to those who have less, I think I speak on behalf of many of the 99% when I say that we thank you.  We thank you for having the ability to realize that this is a world that does not just belong to the wealthy few, but belongs to all of us.  We thank you for realizing that the inequality that exists is not helping but is hurting the chance for the American Dream to even be possible for people anymore.

Tokenism in Hollywood and the World

By Janet  |  2011/10/13 17:04 Posted in Exploitation/Rape/Abuse, Gay Rights, Gender Issues, Internet, Race, Social Mores, Television and Other Media, Women's Rights  |  Comments (0)

Apparently, I am yet again bringing the lulz for my response about Joss Whedon and feminism, racism, and LGBT issues. So, I am going to try to write it without the tendency to fangirl. I will, instead, refer to Hollywood and society in general.

Being upset at one particular writer over perceived or actual tendency to sexualize one gender over another, to stick to white-majority or whites-only casts, or to stick to stereotypes of certain groups isn’t exactly fair since it is common for almost every writer to stick to some ignorant schtick. That doesn’t make it right or fair or good or anything. It just means that we, as a society, need to demand that everyone change instead of focusing on an individual.

There is a problem on television shows and in movies when it comes to stereotypes. Women are often weaklings and are pretty much always treated like sex objects. The gay and lesbian characters that are becoming more commonplace are still typical stereotypes. Characters of other races are almost always a stock character. Yes, all of this needs to change, but change won’t take place if we focus on individuals over society as a whole.

Women are still earning less, even after laws have been passed and protests have been lodged. Different races are still looked over in favor of whites when it comes to jobs, education, and even political office. Religious groups are still scorned if they aren’t considered to fall exactly in line with the societal tendency to love Protestants and (sometimes) other Christian denominations above all others. The LGBT community is still denied equal rights when it comes to marriage, adoption, and full protection from discrimination, among other things.

I have a feeling that in order to see a more multicultural and multidimensional portrayal of society on television and in movies and in literature, we have got to change the societal tendency to let unequal access slide. We have to target the unjust laws. We have to remind politicians that minorities matter. We have to stand up for ourselves and for others. We can’t just expect to see differences because that’s what we as individuals want. We have to demand it from our society before we can truly expect it from the world.

Do I hate that there aren’t many strong female characters out there? Definitely. Do I hate seeing the same ideologies from earlier decades and centuries being revisited now? Yeah. But I don’t blame one person. I blame everyone. We haven’t gotten loud enough for businesses and companies to understand that this world deserves more than just the recycled crap of old. And we need to change that.

We live in a world ruled by pundits who promote agendas of intolerance and reality shows that make their money off of gross stereotyping of certain ethnic groups, so is it really any surprise that the majority of lead characters in the entertainment industry are white men, and occasionally, white women? Is it really any surprise that the only time that there are significant roles for people of color that they fit these nice little molds made years ago?

Personally, I want to scream to every time I see a schizophrenic or a bipolar character who, without drugs or any inciting action, is prone to some horrible act of violence. I hate seeing these very complex diseases get turned into gimmicks for crime dramas, but I don’t blame the writers of the episodes for that. I blame every person who is okay with perpetrating that myth in the real world because those are the people who are making it okay for ignorance and tokenism to continue. Those are the people who are doing the real damage.

Hate Doesn’t Pay Well

By Janet  |  2011/10/04 11:05 Posted in Immigration  |  Comments (0)

It probably doesn’t surprise anyone who knows me well, or at all, that I am not a big fan of immigration laws. Some people only know of my disdain for ones like Alabama’s HB 56, which was recently put into effect. Some even know that I also dislike other immigration laws, including the ones that started this whole anti-immigrant issue over two hundred years ago–the Alien and Sedition Acts. What might surprise some folks is that I’m actually kind of enjoying the chaos from the new immigration law in Alabama. I don’t want to sound sadistic or evil or anything, but I like that it has backfired somewhat.

Education was one of the concerns of the proponents of the strict immigration law. People were concerned that their sweet little children were not receiving the proper education because they claimed the systems were stretched too thin taking care of the children of illegal immigrants. Well, with the immigration law in action, the parents haven’t had to worry about little Sally or Johnny having their education jeopardized because some illegal kids are getting all of their teachers time. Last Friday alone, the statewide absence rate among Hispanic children was at around 5% or 1998 students. In my hometown alone there were 200 absences that day, and in a much smaller local town, Albertville, there have been 123 students who have been formally withdrawn from the school system. Superintendents and educators have taken to the local news outlets and public access channels to let parents know that they need to send their kids to school and that they are in no danger by doing so. Though some students who have been absent in the schools are expected to return, many may never come back. That is going to end up costing each school system quite a large chunk of change. According to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

Truancy is costly. It costs students an education, resulting in reduced earning capacity. It costs school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in lost Federal and State funds that are based on daily attendance figures.

What does that mean? Well, the longer the kids are out of the schools in the state, the less money the school systems will receive from the state and federal governments. According to Montgomery Superintendent Barbara Thompson a permanent loss of the 231 students who have been absent since the ruling would cost her system around $2 million. Each withdrawn student takes money away from the school system in general. The less money that the systems receive might result in teachers being fired or students being unable to receive newer books and other classroom resources that they might have received had the schools had a higher attendance level. By getting rid of the immigrants who are a “drain on society”, according to the pro-reform crowd, the legislature and the governor may have inadvertently caused more damage to already weakened systems. (The schools are under an almost constant state of proration, which means that they are already under steep cuts.)

Besides education, the law has also caused problems for the local business communities within the state. There are quite a few grocery stores that cater mainly to Hispanic residents, legal or illegal, that are in the area. With the families in the Hispanic community fleeing, store owners are seeing a significant drop in customers. One store owner in particular said that his business might close down, since over 100 of his customers have fled the area for places like Texas, Illinois, and Tennessee.

Even restaurants and grocery stores that don’t cater to specific ethnic groups have seen a decrease in revenue in just the last week. Patrons who had frequented these businesses have disappeared, leaving many of them wondering how they might make up for the losses. Any loss in business can impact a store or restaurant, but such a major drop-off from one group could cause irreparable damages to companies. These businesses might be forced to close if they don’t start making money from the remaining local inhabitants. Even if they manage to do that, the state’s economy might have some trouble recovering from the loss of revenue from the immigrants.

Less business in general means less sales tax revenue. Sales tax is a major source of revenue in the state for the different levels of the government. With less of this revenue coming in, counties, state, and local governments will all have less money to use for things like infrastructure and education. Basically, in trying to rid the state of people who “don’t pay their fair share” (of taxes), the state may have actually cost itself some very valuable revenue.

Landlords who rent out properties to immigrants are also being impacted by the loss of income from their tenants. In some cases, landlords have had to buy back property from immigrants who have paid off mortgages and who’d become owners of the previously rented property. In other cases, the landlords are just left hoping that someone is going to be able to move into their property so that they do not lose money on the property. If the landlords are unable to find renters or buyers, then they might not be able to properly care for the homes anymore. This would lead to the houses falling into disrepair, which would lower the value of homes and property. When the property values go down, the amount of money that the state might get from property taxes related to purchases of nearby homes goes down as well. Also, depending on where the home is, the disrepair might scare off potential newcomers to the area and potential businesses. This could cause the population to become stagnate and it could cause the economy to not grow as much as it might have grown had the original tenants been able to stay in the homes without fearing being kicked out over their immigration status.

One of the major reasons that most people support immigration reform laws is that they believe that illegal immigrants take away jobs from Americans and legal immigrants who could do the work instead. Since the ruling by Judge Blackburn, farmers in the state have had trouble maintaining a sufficient workforce load to harvest the fields. This time of year is a crucial time for harvesting various crops, which means that the lack of workers might cause some crops to go bad before they are harvested. This, in turn, will cause the prices on those crops to go up, which will impact the cost of living for people all around the state, region, and perhaps other parts of the country and world.

A loss of income from harvesting might lead to some farmers being forced to sell off some of their land to pay bills. Bad harvests can even cost a farmer their entire farm, including any livestock, equipment, land, and their home. That is such a drastic outcome, especially when you think about how this law was meant to help the state and not hurt it. If a family lost its home or its farm because of the bill, then the state would lose what little revenue it might get from the already low property taxes that it could have levied against the farmer.

In a less economic issue, there has been an increase in abandoned pets in areas where immigrants lived. Dogs and other animals were left behind, if families could find no other home. Though the pet owners fed the animals one last time, the animals were simply left unleashed. Leaving these creatures outside, with no caregiver, and with no reasonable expectation that they would be cared for could deeply impact the animal and the community. The animals could starve, get sick, be hurt, or, if they are not spayed/neutered, their abandonment might lead to more “unwanted” animals being born. This would impact the community by sending more animals to already-crowded shelters; cost local communities and charities extra money for food, shelter, medicine, and other needs that the animal might have; and would cause an increase (and possibly an overpopulation) of animals in certain areas. This is, at the very least, a sad outcome for people concerned with animals rights and welfare.

There is another way that this new law is impacting the state. This time it is impacting anyone who needs to renew or purchase a new tag or license. People must bring in more forms of identification in order to renew their old tags and licenses. For car tags, they must even bring in proper identification for other people listed on the car’s title. Because the law went into effect right before the end of September, there were a lot of angry people in line at the motor vehicle department offices and annexes. If people didn’t have the proper information when they came in, they were told to go get it and come back. If they didn’t get back before closing time on the thirtieth of September, then the state automatically considered them to be late and assessed charges against them for being late. Now there are people who have complained about all the money that immigrants have cost them who are losing more money because they had to have such a strict law. In punishing the immigrants, they have actually punished themselves.

The last example was kind of funny to me in a way, but only in how it impacts the people who have been so adamant about how horrible immigrants are. The burden is unfair to others, especially people who have been supportive of the immigrants and to the immigrants themselves, but the burden seems almost just for others. Of course, it is unlikely that these people will ever realize that their hatred might lead to less money for the state, teachers being laid off, people losing their homes and their livelihoods, animals starving and dying because they’ve been abandoned, and fines being levied against them for not renewing their tags because they don’t carry proper documentation of their own proof of citizenship. That aspect of this makes the whole thing sad in a way. It seems like these folks should have to realize the damage that their bigotry might cause for this state.

So, way to go, Alabama! You have managed to achieve the exact opposite of what you intended to do by passing this law. I bet that makes some of you smug bastards feel really good, doesn’t it?