Patterico's Pontifications

3/27/2006

Let’s Hope the Statute Was Proofread Better Than the Article

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Immigration — Patterico @ 5:05 pm



A story on the L.A. Times web site reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has stripped from the immigration bill a provision that would criminalize illegal presence in this country. This will make it harder to bring criminal charges against illegal aliens, as it is often difficult to prosecute aliens for their initial illegal entry, due to statute of limitations issues.

Amusingly, the story appears to have been typed in terrific haste:

After days of street demonstrations that stretched from California to the gounds of the U.S. Capitol, the committee also voted to strip out proposed criminal penalties for residents found to be in this country illegally.

. . . .

In general, the bill is designed to strengtehn border patrol, create new opportunities for so-called guest workers and determine the legal future of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

At several critical popints, committee Democrats were united while Republicans splintered. In general, GOP Sens. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mike DeWine of Ohio, who is seeking re-election this fall, sided with Democrats.

Memo to Times editors: run that sucker through a spell-checker before you print it.

UPDATE: They have fixed all of the mistakes. The wonders of a spell-checker.

I should have taken a screenshot of all those typos.

9 Responses to “Let’s Hope the Statute Was Proofread Better Than the Article”

  1. Guess they lade off all teh poofreaders to save molney.

    Patricia (2cc180) — 3/27/2006 @ 11:19 pm

  2. I should have taken a screenshot of all those typos.

    In the future, please do.

    Jason McClain (e510d9) — 3/28/2006 @ 2:26 am

  3. Congratulations, Patterico, for a new high-water mark in dopey criticism. You really know how to put the “anal” in analysis.

    [You seem a bit defensive. Are you sure you’re not a Times editor? — P]

    mikekoshi (a4f90b) — 3/28/2006 @ 6:49 am

  4. [You seem a bit defensive. Are you sure you’re not a Times editor? — P]

    Or a congressional republican bypassing bicameralism and presentment?

    actus (6234ee) — 3/28/2006 @ 7:59 am

  5. Actually, I don’t understand how they could have their computers set up to not have an automatic spellcheck function.

    If it weren’t for spellcheck, y’all’d think I hadn’t gotten past the third grade.

    Dana (a90377) — 3/28/2006 @ 3:54 pm

  6. Out west we need all the help we can get!

    I hope they pass something that would allow them to work in the US with greater facility.

    HOwever; being able to own land in Mexico would be an nice gesture on their part for Americans..

    Randall Wall (0195d4) — 12/27/2006 @ 10:38 am

  7. That looks really bad for the L.A. Times but on the hand of this bill that they speak of, I think its outragious! The population of this country is incrreasing exponentially and to have hardworking american citizens underminded by these illegal aliens by not paying taxes working on visas going back to mexico when they are up only to exchange them with someone else, the whole situation angers me!

    Nathan S. (afd690) — 1/4/2007 @ 1:13 pm

  8. America needs to be for Americans.

    Resell Rights (6dfc52) — 11/2/2007 @ 1:39 pm

  9. thanks

    celebs (a1028c) — 7/21/2008 @ 6:43 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1005 secs.