The story carries an ominous warning that public discussions about immigration policy are causing a rise in racism.

I'm sorry Josh, but I've reread the article twice, and I would call that a mischaracterization. The article carries no such warning about "public discussions causing a rise in racism."

The one reference to "public discussion about immigration reform" that I can find is from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center. He doesn't warn agains public discussion causing racism, he warns about letting public discussion about immigration reform get hijacked by extremists, claiming they "consistently try and exploit any public discussion that has some kind of racial angle, and immigration has worked for hate groups in America better than any issue in years."

Erin Texeira suggests that "as the fight over immigration reform drags on, an ominous undercurrent to the debate - racism - is becoming more pronounced" and backs that contention up. Devin Burghart of the Center for New Community is quoted saying "It's not simply a debate about immigration policy. ... It's about race and national identity and who and what we are as Americans." I agree --- we have had THAT very discussion right here on this blog.

I share your discomfort with the use of unnamed sourcing, with words like "some activists." I'd also like to add "White House aides" or in the case of Judy Miller, "Iraqi sources." THAT is an ongoing problem that affects EVERY major news organization in the country from the NY Times to network news.

However, Texeira does not use unnamed sources in this story, other than this single instance: "Some activists say the House of Representatives started it." All of her other sources are named. She quotes former President Carter on the Sensenbrenner bill: "racist overtones" (and I agree) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on the amendment to its immigration bill last month that declared English the national language: "racist" and "divisive" (and I agree).

She quotes named representatives of the the Long Island Immigration Alliance, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti-Defamation League.

"Texeira's foundationless reporting?"

Whoa! It seems to me your big beef should be with the Anti-Defamation League, whose report she she largely based her story on. The ADL didn't issue a detailed critical inspection, they issued a description of their findings. That's what they do. They don't issue studies, they issue reports. Should Texeira not have reported on their findings as such?

JohnS is back! Did you read the post below? What happened to the "Scalito" filibuster?

I dunno. What happened to your balls, anonymous?

Watch your mouth, JohnS. And substituting an asterisk for a vowel does not make it OK to use profanity when posting on ITA.

I urge you to read the ITA terms of service, particularly section 9 regarding comments:

http://www.intheagora.com/terms.html

Where the fuck are the rules against profanity?

#9 only calls out hd homimem attacks, and the general comments "deemed unwanted by any author".

For that matter, who are Musgrave, Tierney, Brayton, or Darlington?

"For that matter, who are Musgrave, Tierney, Brayton, or Darlington?"

ITA writers past and present. I currently have two articles on the front page, man!

Even if there aren't explict rules against profanity, I think a request by one of ITA's own should be respected, Foltz, or JohnS, or whomever else is reading. My house doesn't have a no profanity rule, but I'm perfectly within my rights to tell my rowdy friends to take it outside if they're being too loud or violent for my tastes.

Certainly it was a mistake for adding you to the "past" list David, sorry. I should have added Punch-the-Bag.

Usually I agree with, "I think a request by one of ITA's own should be respected", after all you have the magical powers of the edit.

Now that is only on a thread basis, you have Terms to cover the site as a whole. After all, once something rolls off the main page, its lost to the internet ether until you run for office or get appointed to some other publicly visible position.

The point was trying to make was that the Terms don’t mention profanity as cited by Eric, but Josh, a well studied law student, left a nice catch all with the line about comments "deemed unwanted by any author".

I always find it rather humorous when members of the species homo sapiens say they have brown skin, which is akin to a cardinal saying it has red feathers. Ignoring rare variations such as albinism, some shade of brown skin is universal in the human species.

David said it well. The ToS underscores the intent for ITA to be like a virtual town meeting--not a virtual rowdy bar. Things may get spirited, but try to keep things respectful and rated PG (or at least PG-13).

I have to agree 100% with this post, and I wonder just how blind and racist people have to be to actually support a stereotypical and obviously egocentric 'reporter' like Erin Texeira.

I use the term 'reporter' loosely, because she is unfortunately NOT a journalist, but rather an opinionative writer who subjects her own theories and racist viewpoints into her literature. Time and time again her articles seem to find some way to lay blame for the ills of 'insert minority name here' on whites. In so many of her articles there is this feeling that you are supposed to be shaking your head with pursed teeth thinking to yourself "that is terrible, those damn white people!!"

Well sorry, I do NOT subscribe to that racist platform of garbage. I am not white, I don't know anyone who is white. Let me explain. Just in the way that we should NOT celebrate the ills of blacks, nor should we point out and denegrate whites in the same manner. If people like Texeira insist upon continually shedding light on 'problems' purportedly brought about by white people, while using her own stereotypical viewpoints to try to force the issue, then I say everyone should drop 'white' and go with what they truly are.

As for me, I'm German, Bohunk, Lithuanian and French, and therefore I do not wish to be called WHITE by the likes of racists like Texeira. When you celebrate victories based on skin color, you also make it acceptable to denegrate race on the basis of skin color. It's really that simple.

What do I mean, you ask? Let me put it this way. Where is it ever acceptable to run around screaming white power, saying that white people need more of this or more of that, yet it's just fine for someone to continually talk about, even in a round about way, how whites are causing so much trouble for other minorities. So those of western European heritage are stuck, continually forced to bear witness to the supposed racism they purpetrate on others, all the while unable to celebrate anything based on their own skin color.

Let me clarify something here, I think celebrating/denegrating anything based on skin color is incredibly ignorant, in fact, in this day and age, it's just downright stupid. I tire of the endless attempts by some in our society to do so. Interestingly enough, in the process of promoting your own race based on skin color, your ignorance ends up by default casting a racist shadow upon everyone else. Why can't people like Texeira realize this?

I dislike racially charged journalism myself.