Americans aren't known for their rational views on immigration. So it's no wonder we attack low-wage workers while celebrating immigrant athletes.

Sally Kohn, Movement Vision Lab, in AlterNet.org

I have to confess I've never really cared about the Olympics. Since I'm not much for sports or raw nationalism, the fusion of the two doesn't really get me up in the morning. But I will tune in tonight to watch Lopez Lomong -- Sudanese "Lost Boy" turned U.S. track star -- carry the American flag in the opening ceremonies. I'm sure I'll have a tear in my eye, but also a twinge in my stomach for the profound irony of the moment. Some might even call it hypocrisy.

For here we are in the United States, where though the price of gas is skyrocketing, there seems to be endless fuel to feed the fires of anti-immigrant sentiment. But the Olympics are different, I guess. Is it the same with professional sports? Or the governorship of California? We don't like immigrants in low-wage jobs that none of us citizens want to do, but we don't mind immigrants in the exceptionally high-paying jobs that American-born citizens can only dream of?

What's the point complaining about an undocumented Mexican making $5 an hour in a chicken processing plant, who lost two of his fingers because of unsafe conditions and labor violations? Shouldn't we be more upset about Yao Ming making $15 million a year, plus endorsements?

More...

An internal investigation concluded last month that for nearly two years, top advisers to Gonzales discriminated against applicants for career jobs who weren't Republican or conservative loyalists.

Mark Sherman, Huffington Post

Nick Anderson

Former Justice Department officials will not face prosecution for letting improper political considerations drive hirings of prosecutors, immigration judges and other career government lawyers, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday (August 5).

Mukasey used his sharpest words yet to criticize the senior leaders who took part in or failed to stop illegal hiring practices during the tenure of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

But, he told delegates to the American Bar Association annual meeting, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime. In this instance, the two joint reports found only violations of the civil service laws."

More...

Related:

Hiring at Justice: Sooooo high school, and sooooo wrong, Nick Coleman, Star Tribune | MN

Recent prejudiced comments about autistic and other disabled persons by American talk radio host Michael Savage reflect too-common misunderstandings of disability that warrant Congressional extension of existing legal protections against discrimination.

Michael Waterstone, Jurist

On his nationally-syndicated radio talk show, Michael Savage recently referred to children with autism as "frauds and brats," explained that the high levels of asthma impacting minority children were because "the children got extra welfare if they were disabled," and has ridiculed people with physical and mental disabilities on his show. This has ignited a firestorm as to whether various radio stations should drop Savage. Especially with large numbers of veterans with service-connected disabilities returning home, the public has shown decreased patience for this type of hate-mongering, making it likely Savage will go the way of Don Imus in a lot of markets.

But Savage's comments demonstrate a point that is more important than the issue of whether he should be fired or not. As the 18th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act approaches, Savage's prejudiced comments show why the statute was originally enacted and why recent Congressional action to amend the statute to make it stronger is needed.

The lawsuit seeks to get testimony or documents from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

By James Vicini, Reuters

A federal judge ruled on Thursday (July 31) that Congress in its fight with the Bush administration can subpoena current and former top White House aides in its investigation over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, rejected the administration's arguments that the aides were immune from such subpoenas and that Congress cannot force them to testify or turn over certain documents.

In a lengthy ruling totaling nearly 100 pages, he rejected the administration's request to dismiss the lawsuit that had been filed by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee in March.

The lawsuit seeks to get testimony or documents from White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

More...

Related:

House committee votes to hold Rove in contempt! Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
The decision by the HJC to hold Karl Rove in contempt is a recommendation to the full House, who can now vote to adopt the recommendation with a contempt resolution by a simple majority vote.