thecowsaysmoo123

Your proof of arrest document states that you were arrested for immigration violations, not for being a muslim. Did the US government make muslim visa violators a higher priority than nonmuslim visa violators immediately after 9/11? Yes, at least according to your linked articles. But you should make it clear that you were accused (guilty?) of some visa/immigration violation, so there was in fact a legal reason to arrest you.

Fair enough, your site was not loading well, so I assumed that I knew what happened to you based on your arrest document and the linked news articles. I'm sorry for jumping the gun.

I actually agree with you that the retroactive registration provision was wrong. My argument was about the degree of the rights violation, that's all. The fact is that the government can place registration requirements on you (as a visa holder who is not a US citizen ) that could not be placed on a US citizen. The ability to enforce such rules comes with the visa, if you voluntarily come to the US as a noncitizen, you have to obey the restrictions. For example, a greencard holder technically has to carry their card with them at all times, a US citizen does not have to carry their ID with them everywhere.

The fact that only noncitizens were subject to this and that only people who had (or believed to have had) committed immigration crimes were jailed is a absolutely critical detail that perhaps should be placed in the summary.

To be fair, I don't think giving a private corporation a monopoly would result in better service than a government run monopoly. But the key word is monopoly. The results could have been a lot better if a new monopoly wasn't established.

While I disagree with you that monopolies always form naturally (this neglects new entrants to the market, declining relevance of a product, etc..) I have never been against anti-trust laws, and if the Austalian teleco was competitively privatized, it is important to make sure that regulations allowing new entrants are followed and most importantly that anti-trust laws are enforced.

20-40 is nowhere near the size of the gap though.

If the SAT predicts achievement in that study, then your statement that "the only thing the SAT measures is your ability to take the SAT" is not totally true, right?

Of course kid 1 has an advantage over kid 2, but that isn't the SAT's fault. But this can't be the whole explanation, because of two reasons: 1. The gap between inner city students and white students who are just as poor is still large. http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209_p.html 2. Your explanation explains why students with a household income of $20K score less than students with an income of $40K. It does not begin to explain why scores continue to increase with income thereafter. The effects you mention are threshold effects, and once some breathing room in household finances are achieved, they should go away if they were the predominant cause of low scores.