Saturday, July 22, 2017

Miser Family Update, moving edition

Life continues to be rich and full in the Miser Mom household.

There has been some news, in relationship to which, all other news pales. We'll cover the pale news first.

Me, I finished up my summer research with my student. She's managed to make some nice progress on our question, and I'm looking forward to writing up the results for possible publication this fall. I keep banging away on my own math paper, too. I love having several math project to keep me busy.

N-son and my husband had a blast heading out Friday to Philadelphia to protest Jeff Sessions' message, who was there to protest that Philadelphia (and other cities) have declared themselves sanctuary cities. N-son enjoys being politically active with his dad. When they're not heading off to political rallies, N-son and J-son have also both been spending their mornings caught up in their summer school classes.

I-daughter got the good news that her eye problems were not auto-immune diseases, but might have been "eye-shingles". At any rate, she's recovering well and we're all happy about that.

. . . and that's all the simple news.

In more substantial news, you might have inferred by reading between the lines that J-son has been both growing up and growing apart this summer; earlier today the "apart" aspect of his growing took precedence, and he moved out of the house to live with friends and also at his boxing gym. We're still uncertain as to what this will look like long-term for him, and I guess also for us. More updates as we get them in the future.

And that's the news from the Miser Mom clan, a family that continues to be prosperous in our adventures.


  1. I'm sorry to hear that your husband (and you) support Sanctuary Cities. Perhaps you can explain to me why?

    1. I drove 700 miles today, so this message might be a little incoherent, but I'll do my best. (Blogger limits the number of characters in a comment, so I'll have to do this as several comments).

      The first thing I want to say is how much I admire/am grateful to you for the fact that you "hang around" my blog, knowing that we disagree on issues political. Most people only read people they agree with, but it's so, so helpful to us all to try to understand where other people are coming from, *especially* when they disagree with us. I truly respect how open minded you are about being whacked in the face with my views. I admire that.

      I also want to say that I'm guessing you and I totally agree on this: if a person who is in our country commits a violent or other serious crime, that person deserves to be a swift and serious response that includes deportation.

    2. So why do I support sanctuary cities? If I'm going to be 100% honest, I'll admit that part of the reason is identity: like every other human being, I support the causes of people I tend to agree with on other issues. I think identity is (part of) the reason that you *don't* support them. As human beings, all sorts of studies show, we decide based on emotion/social cues, and then make up reasons to explain those decisions later.

      However here are some of my reasons, possibly partly after the fact (although I actually do think these are persuasive, at least to me).

      The link you cite above talks about being "un-American". I am a Christian first, and an American second. One thing the Bible makes clear, over and over again, in many different ways and in VERY strong language, is that God's has a special concern for the widow, the orphan, and the alien. He commands his people to care for these groups as well -- they merit mercy more than justice.

      My husband would go further than I would; he'd say that Evangelicals in particular should encourage Muslim immigration into the U.S. We can't evangelize in Muslim countries, because of the deathly danger to Christians there. So the only chance we have of evangelizing people from majority-Muslim countries is to bring them here (and other safe countries). My husband and I don't agree on everything, and I find this particular argument odd for a bunch of reasons, but I thought I'd include it since you asked.

      As a mathematician, I worry about the "false positives" aspect of the current ICE approach, and particularly about the effect of terrifying children and families who are here legally, who have to worry about undocumented, but otherwise law-abiding family members, being targeted and deported.

      For example, a friend of one of my neighbors is undocumented, but her minor children are citizens; her boyfriend left her to care for them. One of my students, who is a citizen, has a grandmother and a father who have been in the US for 20 years but who are undocumented, and she's terrified that they'll be deported while she's at school. How can I, as a child of God, not want to provide some reassurance to these children that they won't have their families torn away from them? Especially since these people have been doing their best to raise their families well and abide by the laws (because breaking laws, even if it's just getting a speeding ticket, might lead to deportation).

      Before January 2017, the number of deportations under Obama rose dramatically; during that time ICE targeted illegal aliens who had committed crimes. Again, it's not that I object to deporting violent criminals; but ICE currently is much more indiscriminate, and I do think that this particular approach is . . . well, sinful.

      To a lesser extent, I am swayed by my local city's concern (even though my city is not a Sanctuary City) that having local police officers enforce federal laws is an unfunded mandate that puts stress and strain on an already tight budget. Because our immigrants and refugees are actually less likely to commit crimes than our native-born citizens are (the local police argue), taking on a federal immigration task actually makes it harder for them to keep up with the crime issues they need to struggle with.

      So, that's why.

  2. Thanks for answering. I can agree that those who are poor and needy come to this country for a better life; and we should find a way for those who have been here a long time or were brought as children to become documented. I think the laws are not fairly enforced against those who come here illegally. Money talks, so that the poor but hardworking still don't get much of a chance. Why do liberals seem so bent on protecting those who contribute the least and are the most dangerous? Oh there are so many problems! And the politicians don't seem to be interested in solving them; they seem to just want to protect their own little fiefdoms.

    Thanks again for answering. We agree on a lot and I count you as a favorite "friend" in blogland.